Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > * Les Mikesell [13/10/2008 15:31] :
> > >
> > > The supported versions may be wildly different at any time and the next
> > > version may not be suitable for what you want to keep running.
> >
> > Sounds like you should be using a distribution that offers a longer
> > support time than the Fedora offers.

> Sounds like you don't want fedora packagers to volunteer for a longer
> (support) time in fedora (not necessarily under the fedora name but in
> the fedora infrastructure).

Show me the developers who are _commited_ on making it happen, then we can
talk. The infrastructure is in place.

Fedora Legacy foundered because everybody said they wanted it, almost
nobody was willing to do the (hard!) work, and in the end the "many users"
didn't materialize either.

[No, I'm not talking in any official Fedora position, but I think the above
sort of sums it up.]
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

2008/10/14 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>
>
> CentOS is free as "free-beer", but CentOS is not free to take decisions
> on their own, because they depend on RHEL's sources.

Centos is free to do what they like. With that freedom, they've chosen
to try to be "100% binary compatible" with with RHEL:
http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=3

--
Paul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> CentOS is free as "free-beer", but CentOS is not free to take decisions
> on their own, because they depend on RHEL's sources.

Which is a choice CentOS has made deliberately. Were CentOS to choose
differently CentOS would be much less valuable to me.

--
Jeff Ollie

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."

-- Marcus to Franklin in Babylon 5: "A Late Delivery from Avalon"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Yeah, exactly, after doing a "emerge x11-drivers/xf86-video-vmware", I am able to startx now.*
Thanks Alan and Dirk.
-Weifeng

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:





did you forget to rebuild the vmware drivers after you rebuilt the X-Server?



--

alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
> of "open source"

I don't think they agree with you there, in fact Richard would probably be most
upset at such a claim...

Alan
--
"That was said by Eric Raymond who belongs to another movement"
- Richard Stallman

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:46:40AM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>
> Show me the developers who are _commited_ on making it happen, then we can
> talk. The infrastructure is in place.

I am, and a few others. But the infrastructure is still not in place. I
mean it may be physically, but there hasn't been an agreement from
fedora leadership. But I'll propose something for th enext FESCo, we'll
see how it turns out.

> Fedora Legacy foundered because everybody said they wanted it, almost
> nobody was willing to do the (hard!) work, and in the end the "many users"
> didn't materialize either.

The work in the scope of this project will be less hard than what was
done in the scope of legacy, since there will be less QA, in fact the
same amount than in fedora.

I wanted to help fedora legacy, and I wasn't deterred by the packaging
work, but by the amount of QA compared with fedora extras, the processes
were much more complicated for me. I think that the quality was higher,
too. I don't think that we need that quality right now. Legacy continued
the Red Hat releases that were quite stable. Here the aim is to continue
fedora release that are very unstable. The aim is to try to be as stable
as possible, but with the same processes than in fedora.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Alan Cox wrote:

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
of "open source"


I don't think they agree with you there, in fact Richard would probably be most
upset at such a claim...


Yes, the term "open source" came about to correct the FSF fanaticism and
mean something useful...


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:56:50PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:46:40AM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>>
>> Show me the developers who are _commited_ on making it happen, then we can
>> talk. The infrastructure is in place.
>
>I am, and a few others. But the infrastructure is still not in place. I
>mean it may be physically, but there hasn't been an agreement from
>fedora leadership. But I'll propose something for th enext FESCo, we'll
>see how it turns out.

As a suggestion, create your proposal focusing around opening the ACLs
on the older package branches, and keeping the build infrastructure in
place for them. Don't mention "LTS" and take baby steps.

FESCo will likely ask for input from Infrastructure and Rel-Eng as well,
given that Rel-Eng would be required to push updates, and Infrastructure
will have to allocate storage for this. Getting the conversation
started with those groups now would be advised. Infrastructure has been
moving EOL releases to archives, so other changes would be needed to
point repos to the right locations would be needed also.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:06:32AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> As a suggestion, create your proposal focusing around opening the ACLs
> on the older package branches, and keeping the build infrastructure in
> place for them. Don't mention "LTS" and take baby steps.

Agreed.

> FESCo will likely ask for input from Infrastructure and Rel-Eng as well,
> given that Rel-Eng would be required to push updates, and Infrastructure
> will have to allocate storage for this. Getting the conversation
> started with those groups now would be advised. Infrastructure has been
> moving EOL releases to archives, so other changes would be needed to
> point repos to the right locations would be needed also.

Yes. I have begun to read in the wiki how to contact infrastructure
people and things like that, I will certainly begin asking questions on
the relevant mailing lists soon.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 08:17 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Can I buy one copy of a Red Hat package and redistribute it as the GPL
> permits for any GPL covered portion? Or install on as many machines as
> I want? Does every part that has any GPL component permit
> redistribution of the work-as-a-whole?

You can, however you would be violating the terms of your Red Hat
Network service, and Red Hat would be in their rights to terminate your
service.

Common misconception. You don't buy RHEL. You buy a subscription to
the Red Hat Network service. Via the RHN service you can obtain further
subscriptions to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and note there is no version
there. One RHEL entitlement would work for RHEL2.1 on up to RHEL5,
whichever one you choose.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list