On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 14:46 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > >See my previous private response on this one. > > > >As mentioned I only recieved one mail from you, and it was rather > >unclear about your intentions. Seeing as it looked a lot like the > >other "Thanks" and "you should do this" mail I dismissed it as that. > >If there were more I cannot see that I have received any. > > > I did send subsequent mails with even more details. You seem to have > missed out on them. Please accept my apologies if my messages came off > as something that was not intended. I send hundreds of mails over a day > and I might have been curt on occasions. Mails disappearing happens all the time. Seems your second one never made it to our any of our MXs, or atleast no logfile has you -> me on that date. > >I myself tried to contact redhat people on a few occations, but never > >got any responses either. I guessed redhat is a big organization and > >had no time for little me. > > > Can I put it right back to you. I send a mail and I didnt a response > either. Does that mean that little you ignored big Red Hat ;-) I guess I did ignore your intention with the first mail. > Which > people did you contact about this within Red Hat. If you can give names, > I will talk to them and see if they really got a mail. Your mails might > have been lost in the MX issue we had with spams earlier on @redhat.com ids. It might have been wrong of me to send the mails directly to redhat ppls. I'd rather not have to blame anyone since that benefits nobody. I'll provide it in a personal if you really need to investigate what happened. I'm glad we now have an ongoing communication. (Thank you Gene) > >What really irritated me was that the installer problems never saw > >any updates in FC4. What I mean is that anaconda never got fixed. > >I got several mail telling me to "atleast fix the anaconda problems" > >but due to legalese I did not dare to deviate from the standard > >FC4/FC4-updates packages. > > > > > What legalese? As long as you dont call it a formal Fedora release you > can deviate as much as you want. If you want to see this effort happen > within the Fedora Project. see below Ok, thats not the impression I got when this was discussed before FC4.1 was released. Thus I applied the only-official rpms policy. In any case, I tried to fix it but anaconda seemed like a big mess to my eyes. Was hard enough to read the code to figure out how one could build the installer properly. > >Fixing anaconda sounds to me like a community benefit. > >I assume it was not fixed because RH and FC4 itself didn't need it. > > > Most likely because RH was focusing its effort on driving ahead within > its finite resources. Respin efforts and Fedora Legacy project is how > the community can help and has helped here. Now, this is another point where Fedora and Fedora Legacy should join efforts. If Fedora doesnt want/have time to maintain a package, why cant FC-L get access to do it? In any case I assume that both problems were fixed upstream at some point, and a new rpm with the patches could have been released pretty easily. I am currently pondering releasing a FC4.3 after FC5 is released. And then using the FC5 anaconda version instead. Have no idea wether it'll work though. Is it possible to have a fixed anaconda instead? > Fedora Legacy is now a > official project within the Fedora Foundation. You can send a proposal > to the Fedora Foundation - directors AT fedorafoundation.org and copy > me the mail so that I can follow up on this and get this done as formal > project too. I see that you have legal concerns and liability issues. We > can help sort that out. Do provide us a list of requirements and > concerns while sending a proposal if you want to work on this within the > community perhaps as a team then and lets see what we can do to address > this in the right way. Now, this is where I get shaky hands. I need someone to explain to me what this would need from me. And what benefits would there be to do this instead of continuing like what I have? (I'm sure there are some, and can think of a few obvious but a few examples wouldn't hurt) You do need to sell me this idea as I don't like jumping into something unknown with both feet. > >What *I* read was several thanks from *redhat.com ppls that seemed to > >be from the persons, not company. IE: I didn't see them as official. > > > True but we did send messages welcoming you. If you had wanted to get an > official response and atleast responded to me, I would have been able to > help you. Not blaming anyone. Just clarifying some misconceptions > involved. Glad to have that out of the way. I hope we can progress from here to make Fedora all that it can be. I guess we can work the details in private from here. -HK
