On 08/31/2010 08:28 AM, Radek Vokál wrote:
On 08/31/2010 01:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:46:50PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> The big issue with Fedora Legacy though was trying to do too much. We
>> were supporting RHL-7.3, RHL-8 and RHL-9 and old Fedora's. You pick
> And it turned out that very few people wanted to do the work to support
> Fedora, just old RHL.
> If you really want to do this, I suggest starting *opposite* RHEL 6. People
> who want something kinda like Fedora 13 to last for a very long time already
> have their answer. Wait a year and a half, though, and people will start
> itching a little bit. And then they'll want what they picked at that point
> to last forever.
Isn't this what CentOS is about? Even though I like this idea to have
something between slow running RHEL and fast forward Fedora.
I think the fact that Centos exists is one big Problem to get people
rallied for a long-term Fedora release. A lot of them simply go "why bother?".
I also think that the gap in between the two is pretty much the only way to
go to get the people motivated for whom the now three year release cycle of
RHEL/Centos is simply a bit too long. My feeling is:
1. Pick up a Fedora release every 18 months and use that as a basis for a
long-term release. This should make things slow enough to make Fedora
viable as a server platform but still fast enough so that packages don't
get too outdated.
2. Support support such a release for 3 years. That way people have plenty
of time to plan for updates yet the server SIG only has to support two
releases at a time. This is basically the Fedora approach of supporting the
current and the previous release.
This still leaves you with the problem of having to maintain the packages
for three years though. But even if you limit the number of "supported"
packages to a smaller number (i.e. Fedora Server becomes a subset of
Fedora) you still have the issue that not everbody can easily support every
package. When a major overhaul like say of python happens then you can't
just put some random person in charge of getting that sorted out and
maintained for 3 years. The current python maintainers would pretty much
have to officially sign up for Fedora Server to make this work and the same
is true for a lot of other core packages/package groups.
Not sure if this is possible/viable.