[Fedora-infrastructure-list] Infrastructure Package Management

[Mike McGrath]

On 8/24/06, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 16:48 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> I'll go ahead and ask the question.  If I proposed a Fedora Project
> called Fedora Enterprise or Fedora Enterprise Extras who here would
> help me maintain it?
>
> We could then merge Z00dax's current infrastructure and work with some
> of Fedora's stuff.  With quaid's help we might get some support/buy-in
> from inside Red Hat.  Operating completely independently of Extras or
> with them.  Perhaps one of the branch requests could be "RHEL4" or
> "FEE4".  (I'm not sure about how RH would feel about Fedora producing
> RH branded packages).  We can open it up to extras maintainers and
> follow the same lifecycle of whatever branch we're creating.  I'd be
> happy to write up some guidelines do the administrative tasks and all
> the overhead that would come along with a project like this.  I'm not
> kidding myself, this is a lot of work but, IMHO, I think there's a
> real market out there not just inside of the FP Infrastructure.
>
> Ball of worms?  Crazy Idea?  Yeah, but its so crazy it just might
> work.  Especially if we can leverage the knowledge and people we
> already have.
>
> Seth, I'm going to do an audit of the packages we're currently using
> or want to use and send them to the list tonight.
>
>                  -Mike
>

I talked to z00dax.  He's in and thinks that he knows of others that
would be interested from places like ATrpms and nrpms.  He's also
volunteered his infrastructure should this thing not take off in
Fedora or through RH.  We also think there should be different rules
around this then the current extras packaging.  While we'd both be
creating packages I think our goals are different enough to warrant
different rules, steering committees, etc.

             -Mike