Fedora Core 3 Transferred to Fedora Legacy

Robert Locke lists at ralii.com
Fri Jan 27 14:07:14 UTC 2006

> From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>
> On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 16:59 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> > If you want to make a difference, step up to the plate and assist the
> > project.  
> In case you don't know: I maintain ca. 50 packages in FE and reviewed
> many others.
> > If you are not willing to do that, then you are relegating yourself to
> > the field of those users who are only interested in what is already
> > available in a format someone else has created.
> C.f. above - I am "demanding", because "I gave".

Watching this thread, what is with all this demanding?

Red Hat is a member of this Fedora community and is giving us lots of code.  You are a member of this community and giving us lots of help through the "Extras" package.  Thank you, by the way, for doing more than just receiving.

We all knew coming in to this that the Fedora Core part was to be a "fast-moving distribution" with an almost mandatory upgrade path through "each" release (not "every other"), such that I would be upgrading at least twice a year.  The community around the Fedora Legacy Project stepped up to try to give a longer life to each Fedora Core release.

But, how do we demand something of a community member?  Turning the tide a bit perhaps....  I don't know anything about which packages you maintain for Extras, but I demand that you offer your packages for the PowerPC architecture on Fedora Core 1 for the next seven years (I am trying to pick something outrageous - if you cannot see my tongue planted in my cheek).  How can I demand that?

Red Hat, as a leading community member, has been very upfront with us from day one of the Fedora Project.  They will stop doing the work (however much that may be) on delivering updates to packages for a given "n" release shortly after the next "n+1" release of Core which conveniently coincided date-wise with the Test2 of the n+2 release.  So we have some overlap of releases to allow us to conveniently upgrade within a couple of months of a given release.  Why is this such a surprise to everyone?

Now everything that we "demand", Red Hat has to weigh against their current workload to see if it generates a lot of work or has some other intrinsic benefit to them.  While I am sure that you have a big heart and that you are supplying the packages to Extras simply because of that heart (i.e. you are not actually using them yourself), most folks are going to do something because of some benefit....  Why are we lambasting Red Hat for being able to make choices about how they are going to expend their energies?

On the flip side, I do not mind people in the community suggesting changes in policy, but nothing can really be "binding" on a given community member.  The idea of extending support for a given release is already provided through Legacy, though this discussion is apparently opening the door to making the "transition" smoother.

I think the beauty of the new Fedora Foundation will be to allow others to "officially" step up to the plate and provide that "Legacy" support, or "re-spun ISO" support, or whatever else those of us in the community can dream up, without the "veto" of some US corporation looming.  It won't happen overnight, but I think this is an interesting step forward for all of us.

But let's stop "demanding" and spend more effort "discussing" how we can move forward.


More information about the users mailing list