[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: nominate for removal: ethereal

For the record, this is a topic that I'm tackling from a
clean-sheet-of-paper position.  I intend to complete a (non-binding)
draft for review by a small number of folks, then with larger and larger
circles, including fedora-devel-list, over the coming weeks.

Disclaimer: while passionately supporting the idea of Fedora for a long
time, I'm only just recently involved with it at the nuts-and-bolts
level.  I consider myself to be an intelligent newbie, not the grizzled,
all-knowing wizard that my age or experience with open source might
imply.  You should assume that until I prove myself, stuff I say might
as likely be overruled as adopted.  Still, I think I can help.


On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 10:46, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:21:25 +0200, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch redhat com> wrote:
> > seth vidal wrote:
> > And the point is, for a package that needs to be in our enterprise
> > products, it is in the long run necessary that there is an internal Red
> > Hat package maintainer for it.
> You bring up an interesting pedantic question of policy regarding
> Fedora Extras moving forward....
> Does everything that needs to be in the enterprise products need to be in Core?
> Can't you as a red hat employee and maintainer of the enterprise
> products maintain
> this package as part of Fodora Extras?
> Keeping much if not all of the enterprise relevant packages maintained
> by a red hat employee as part of fedora has its merits im sure, but
> I'm not sure if keeping all the enterprise relevant packages inside
> Core, is a good long term solution for the fedora project. So the
> question isn't so much should the package maintainership be changed.
> Instead its a question of can Red Hat maintained packages be moved out
> of Core and maintained as part of Extras.
> -jef

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]