Craig White wrote:
I'm not interested in helping a distribution become self-contained and a
limited subset of what it could be if it simply cooperated with
independent 3rd parties.
Peter's assertion is surely clear enough, that Fedora does have
community participation and you can join the development group to help
guide the packaging, at least to become involved in the process but
clearly you want this ability without the commitment. Some people choose
to curse the darkness and some choose to light candles.
and the likelihood that you will still be on this list 2 years from now,
cursing the same darkness and lighting no candles?
That depends on what changes, of course. The only way a candle could be
lit would be to change policy, which isn't something I can do. My main
reasons for caring about fedora at all is that it historically is a
preview of what RHEL/Centos will be in the next release and it shares
the same administration style. If their courses continue to diverge in
ways like the Sun jvm inclusion in RHEL, jpackage breakage in fedora
there won't be a compelling reason to deal with the usability issues. Or
if my company finds a better alternative for the server side to replace
RHEL/Centos (and we do have someone promoting Suse), then the
administrative similarities will no longer be interesting. But, I sort
of expect the same old things to continue and it might be inconvenient
to get the support contracts for some software moved over to a different OS.