Quoting "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@xxxxxxxxxx>: > We're not going to explicitly maintain a Fedora Core release that is > compatible with some RHEL version. We're generally expecting that > community software projects will be most interested in working with > Fedora. Correct. But it does add a small, additional burden for those that do want to release RHEL packages. In fact, it largely benefits Red Hat if they do. that was, more or less, my point. It's hard to know how to accomodate properly. > I recognize that this doesn't really answer your question. I'm > wondering how much of an issue this is; how much we'll see community > projects deployed on RHEL. And I don't know the answer either. In fact, I think Red Hat knows better than I can even stab at. To "narrow" my comments, after re-educating myself, I'm largely talking about Fedora "Extras" (not Fedora "Core," "Alternatives" or anything else). > It hasn't been a big issue so far; we haven't been explicitly maintaining > compatibility between RHL and RHEL products in the past and I just haven't > been seeing it as a big issue. And I agree with you. But I want to offer up something. The reason why you didn't see much reason to is that most people didn't see value in moving to RHEL when RHL "did-the-job" -- e.g., supported for 2 years, etc... So they just ran RHL. Now everything changes with Fedora. We now have only RHEL that is being supported 1+ years. So this may drive more people to RHEL WS/ES. If they know they can get most of the "common" software from Fedora "Extras" to run on RHEL, then RHEL WS/ES should ensure even more copies. So I guess I'm talking about a 2nd tag on _only_ Fedora "Extras." Maybe an old throw-back to the separate "Powertools," only now for RHEL. Unsupported by Red Hat, but available. I guess as you mentioned before, there _might_ be some issues with how SLAs are handled, but I still see it as doable. > I think we concentrate on this: if it's a community project, we're > thinking open source, and people deploying it outside of the context > of installing a distribution seem to be building from source more > than installing random binaries, and for well-built products, it > really should just build wherever... And that's my hope too. > I'm glad that our desire to under-promise and over-deliver is > visible. It is not only visible, but nothing disturbs me more when other people don't see it. I find I defend Red Hat almost weekly when people don't. It's more of that "hate #1" attitude I see all over the place. E.g., there is plenty of things to complain about Microsoft, but 90% of what I see out of people is just "hate #1" attitude and not a very good argument. > Hmm. > What you really need isn't a distribution, it's a buildroot. > Something you can chroot into to build packages that would work > in that distribution. No point in having separate OS installations > for every case. [ TheBS sees a beam of light ... ahhh ... ] Hmmm, that's not quite where I was going, but it made me think of something else. Maybe you should ship UML in RHEL and encourage Fedora to accomodate the few details to make sure it works with it. I'm not an UML guru, but this sounds like a possible solution (provided you have the extra memory/resources so your system can handle it)? -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ There is no greater ignorance than the popular American environ- mental movement, which focuses on the most useless details. Be it recycling the world's most renewable resource or refusal to use proven CFC insulation on launch vehicles, no lives will be spared in the further pursuit of, ironically, harming the environment.
