Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes
mattdm at fedoraproject.org
Tue Jan 28 17:33:12 UTC 2014
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
> Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
> sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
what the Fedora Server working group is coming up with?
> To me what I would want of "Fedora Server" is simply a solid base OS
> and a solid set of package I can install on top of that depending on
> what I want each particular server to do - sometimes that will be
> postgres, sometimes it will be mysql and apache, sometimes it will
> be exim and spamassassin.
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not anything
in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a thing". That leaves
define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
> The biggest reason for people preferring, say, Ubuntu over Fedora
> for servers is probably not the existence of something called
> "server" but rather the extended stable lifetime offered by LTS
And that's on the table as a possibility, but it would take a lot of
commitment from package maintainers. Another approach is to work on making
upgrades less disruptive, so you don't need to fear the EOL -- just schedule
an update and your stuff keeps working.
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
More information about the devel