What do we want to archive with Fedora?
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Dec 21 17:51:24 UTC 2006
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said:
>> But it's something some people want/think they need(²). Heck, those
>> people are probably even willing to put work into it to get it into
>> Fedora(³) -- so do we really want to forbid it? I might be wrong, but I
>> don't think that's the way to get the community involved properly.
> Here's what I want to see - I don't want to hear 'people are probably
> even willing' - I want to see 'people are doing it'. If a RT kernel is
> what they want, start a RT kernel repo for Fedora on their webspace, and
> work to keep it up to date. If a module for their usbfrobozz is what
> they need, step up, put it in Extras, and start dealing with the hassles
> of keeping it up to date across updates and development.
And I want to do it the scope of the Fedora-project to get the people
involved that way into the project. Currently we scare them often away
with out behavior.
Maybe some kind of experimental area would he a good idea. The Respins
(and Live-CD-Betas) could live there, too.
> I'll admit - the way Fedora is developed right now, we don't have
> resources to throw towards projects we're not *actively* interested
> in for the next release;
Did I mention already that an we could need a experimental area?
> it's why on the proposed feature list that
> I need *names* for everything.
Sure; btw, thx for it, I like it!
> [...]
> (*) I'm not against having kmod packages in Extras, but I think we
> need to warn prospective users about what they're getting into.
I more and more tend to think we should move the kmods and the kernels
into some seperate add-on-repo.
CU
thl
More information about the advisory-board
mailing list