Re: a diversion into EPEL [was Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like]

[Igor Gnatenko]

On Dec 9, 2016 5:18 PM, "Matthew Miller" <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:07:32AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>  > Anyways, in the big picture, while I don't speak for
> everyone on
>  > the Project Atomic side, I personally point users at CentOS first,
>  > unless I have some reason to think they want Fedora. Something like
>  > 80% of Fedora usage hitting the mirrors was desktop systems, right?
>  > I don't expect that to change personally.
>  Although..except for EPEL.  And how EPEL works should obviously be
>  part of this. Things would feel clearer if EPEL lived in CentOS now
>  perhaps. 
Right; in mirror traffic, EPEL is to Fedora Workstation as Workstation
is to Server. :)

EPEL packages *are* Fedora packages, though — moving the project to
CentOS isn't completely crazy, but would require a lot more integration
and cooperation between the projects.

That's something I'd like to see anyway. I think there are a lot of
opportunities for this with containers and modularity — if you can just
run Fedora containers on CentOS or RHEL *directly*, why bother
rebuilding them? For a lot of the software that's in EPEL, that's
completely sufficient. For other software, where users would like the
version to match more closely the long lifecycle, maybe there could be
a hand-off from Fedora version to CentOS version.

Don't know how modularity is related here. It's just about building distro.
Containers, yeah, but please don't kill Fedora. I don't want to run
container for each software I use. RHEL and CentOS people can struggle, but
don't do this with Fedora users.




--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

a diversion into EPEL [was Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like]

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Igor Gnatenko
<i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Dec 9, 2016 5:18 PM, "Matthew Miller"
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>
>  On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:07:32AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > Anyways, in the big picture, while I don't speak for everyone on
> > > the Project Atomic side, I personally point users at CentOS first,
> > > unless I have some reason to think they want Fedora. Something like
> > > 80% of Fedora usage hitting the mirrors was desktop systems, right?
> > > I don't expect that to change personally.
> > Although..except for EPEL.  And how EPEL works should obviously be
> > part of this. Things would feel clearer if EPEL lived in CentOS now
> > perhaps.
>
>  Right; in mirror traffic, EPEL is to Fedora Workstation as Workstation
>  is to Server. :)
>
>  EPEL packages *are* Fedora packages, though — moving the project to
>  CentOS isn't completely crazy, but would require a lot more integration
>  and cooperation between the projects.
>
>  That's something I'd like to see anyway. I think there are a lot of
>  opportunities for this with containers and modularity — if you can just
>  run Fedora containers on CentOS or RHEL *directly*, why bother
>  rebuilding them? For a lot of the software that's in EPEL, that's
>  completely sufficient. For other software, where users would like the
>  version to match more closely the long lifecycle, maybe there could be
>  a hand-off from Fedora version to CentOS version.
>
>  Don't know how modularity is related here. It's just about building distro.
>  Containers, yeah, but please don't kill Fedora. I don't want to run
>  container for each software I use. RHEL and CentOS people can struggle, but
>  don't do this with Fedora users. 
Please stop with hyperbole.  Nobody is "killing" Fedora.

josh