fesco, fpc and epel relationships

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:38:35AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:29 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the
> > > > various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members
> > > > are not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL
> > > > rule was being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply
> > > > dumped, because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know
> > > > its current responsibilities.
> > > >  
> > > Fedora is more than the operating system.
> > > 
> > > Fedora = RedHat = Ford
> > > Fedora (OS) = RHEL = Mustang
> > > 
> > > We aren't the OS, we produce the OS. 
> > 
> > You mean in relation to the quote I gave above: "we are Fedora, not
> > RHEL"?
> > 
> > The longer version is "We are creating guidelines for packaging within
> > Fedora Core and Fedora Extras and base them on the demand of these
> > users and packagers. We are not taking into account special
> > requirements that are outside this scope, e.g. when they are RHEL
> > specific, because we don't write guidelines for RHEL".
> > 
> > That statement most probably doesn't hold true anymore, but someone
> > needs to pass the responsibilities and mandate down to the FPC.
> 
> I don't see why the FPC can't do "EPEL" specific guidelines where
> relevant.

Neither do I, but we need the authority and commitment.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070319/2adad238/attachment.bin