Re: New proposed top level FAQ for the defunct FedoraLegacy project
David A. Ranch wrote: I would like the mirrorlist to stay if that's possible. Maybe change it to say that there is no guarantee they are still up and serving FL repo's. I've already saved a local copy, so it's not really for me, but someone else might just find it very useful. Agreed and I also saved a copy too. The problem is.. since little to no effort would be going into polcing the mirrors, this mirror list will probably start to reflect bad information. Personally.. I'm still hoping that Redhat will re-fund this effort as I think it's very valuable but then again, I doubt they really care that much. Refund assumes that Red Hat was involved in the first place. Other than providing infrastructure services, Fedora Legacy is completely volunteer based. There is already a huge amount of funding on Fedora from Red Hat. Asking for more would require a good business case for it. I doubt you can find one easily. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: New proposed top level FAQ for the defunct FedoraLegacy project
David A. Ranch wrote: Q. Why is the FedoraLegacy project shutting down? A. A combination of reasons: - A lack of community members that actually contributed to patches, testing, deployment, etc. - A lack of funding Is funding really a issue? Unless you mean putting full time Red Hat employees on it, I dont see it as major problem. Q. Will FedoraLegacy take on support for FC6? A. No, the entire Legacy project is over. Upgrade to a newer version of FedoraCore if you want security and feature patches or upgrade to a different distro such as Redhat Enterprise Linux, Centos, or a different distro all together. Maybe a note that Fedora itself is increasing it's lifecyle from around 9 to 13 months to enable users to upgrade easily and skip a release in between might be worth mentioning here. Q. So what do I do now? I need a Redhat-style distribution that lasts longer than Redhat's official 12-18 month lifespan. 12-18 lifespan for what? Neither Fedora nor Red Hat Enterprise Linux is in that lifespan. The release for RHEL is around that timeframe but then each of the releases are supported for 7 years now. As for Fedora, Red Hat doesnt actually determine the release cycle or lifespan for that. The release features as well as resources available is the criteria for that. Fedora release cycle is around every 6 months and the lifespan for each release is around 13 months now. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Legacy wiki -- statement?
Philip Molter wrote: If you make that kind of statement, you are effectively removing high-end server testing from Fedora Core. If FC is still supposed to be a testbed for the newer software, whether it's desktop or high-end server, then that sounds like the wrong thing to say. Well, since we want people to use Fedora on its own I guess thats a good thing to say. There are people who run servers for whom CentOS isn't a viable alternative because hardware upgrades necessitate running newer kernels and software than is available in current enterprise releases. Right now, the Redhat/CentOS enterprise software offering is moving at a slower pace than the hardware people might run it on. That's the case for us. That's why we run Fedora Core on our rather large amount of servers. If running Fedora on more than what the project has already planned to do (which is for around 13 months), people who are expecting a longer lifecyle should contribute towards that and find the middle ground they need to. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Upgrading FC releases via yum
Kirk Pickering wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:45:11AM -0500, James Kosin wrote: Hmmm. maybe a better upgrade path would be in order. Allowing users to keep their configuration; with minor changes and upgrade the units to FC6-FC7-FC8 etc. without any troubles. I am trying the procedure at the link below right now on a FC4 laptop. It's a method to upgrade from FC4 to FC5 via yum. So far, it seems to be working well on a fairly clean FC4 installation. One nice aspect of doing it this way is that I only have to download 710MB of package updates, as opposed to 5 CD-ROMs stuffed with packages that I don't need. Has anyone on this list tried the following method? http://www.makuchaku.info/blog/how-to-upgrade-from-fc4-to-fc5-via-yum The guy on the blog is my colleague. We do it all the time but it doesnt work well with random packages and repositories. When Fedora Core adopted the extras packaging guidelines a number of packages didnt have a proper upgrade path and I had to do some post upgrade manual clean up. It isnt yet good enough for me to recommend to new users. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Wiki Correction
Jason Reusch wrote: My apologies if this is not the appropriate place to post this correction. I signed up for the wiki, but the page is immutable. Many thanks for this project. It has been a big help to me. You need to be in the edit group for wiki write access. See http://jkeating.livejournal.com/32250.html See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/YumFC4Detailed Step 1.3: Check for yum package installation rpm -Uvh http://download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/4/os/i386/yum-2.4.1-1.fc4.noarch.rpm The link is incorrect and returns a 404. I believe this is the correct link. http://download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/4/updates/i386/yum-2.4.1-1.fc4.noarch.rpm Thanks. Fixed. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: You Need Fedora Legacy!! Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit
Axel Thimm wrote: I don't know if the board has power over suggesting to Fedora's sponsor, Red Hat, to resuffle its engineering resources, but if so, then it's a simple equation: If FL is indeed going to get more resources to prolong a Fedora release's lifespan then these resources need to be drained from somewhere. This can't be rawhide and the latest release, but maybe the previous release (like in this timeframe FC5). And it can't be Rex' magic hat either, I think it only produces rabbits and not yet FL contributors. ;) Board can make suggestions, yes. Dictate, no. The board doesnt have the resources in hand to allocate to sub projects. It can set policies and thats the primary work that's being done. If it comes to resources, reshuffling wont work since there is noone working on the previous release that is not working on the current release of Fedora and rawhide too. Its all part of the common pool. If we pull people out of that, we would effectively reducing the amount of movement forward. It would be possible to recommend that Red Hat hire *new people* to work solely on legacy but justifying that is harder compared to active upstream or new release development. Unifying and opening up more of the infrastructure and other ideas like that only doing critical security fixes are things to look at. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: You Need Fedora Legacy!! Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit
Axel Thimm wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:46:37PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Unifying and opening up more of the infrastructure and other ideas like that only doing critical security fixes are things to look at. But FL's charter is already to only cater about security fixes, or do you imply to categorize them and allow some to slip? E.g. allow local priviledge escalation, but fix remote exploits? I don't think that's a good FL manifesto. Allowing non-critical security issues to exist will only harm the project's front to the public more. Not really. It is better than not pushing updates at all. See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-security-list/2006-October/msg6.html The issue is also not the infrstructure IMO, it's simply lack of human resources and either someone needs to assign them to it if that entity (Red Hat/board/whatever) considers that a worthy goal, or the resources need to come from more voluntary people, e.g. FL needs a marketing manager. Lack of human resources is also a result of higher barrier to entry. New people need to be able to contribute easily. Existing contributors in other sub projects like extras need to able to do that. Unifying infrastructure and automating more of the tasks helps in both ways. Or the need for resources is cut by reducing the number and time span of supported releases Just as reducing time span is a option, classification of vulnerabilities and working on critical ones after a time span is also a option that needs to be considered. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: [Legacy] Mentoring for vulnerability bug tracking -- kernel, and general
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 02:41 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote: A more general question is this: How do we in Fedora Legacy track vulnerabilities and make sure that we are aware of all the relevant vulnerabilities for the packages that we maintain, and haven't missed something? The fedora-security-list and Josh Bressers are using audit files to track all relevant security vulnerabilities for their sets of packages, which are kept in CVS here, http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/fedora-security/audit/?root=fedora but we here in Fedora Legacy haven't started using this kind of tool yet. Is it time for us to start doing so? If so, are any of you interested in forming some kind of vulnerability tracking team and getting started on such list(s) for the products we maintain? It seems to me that whatever system used by the Fedora Security Team should be adopted by Fedora Legacy after discussion with the relevant contributors. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Heads up! Firefox Mozilla
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 10:24 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote: Hi Folks, Over the (HOLIDAY!) weekend, Mozilla released a new Firefox (1.0.8) fixing a set of critical vulnerabilities. The upstream (mozilla.org) chose *not*, however, to release the Mozilla code for 1.7.13 yet, but I am told that the updated Mozilla will be released officially in the near future. We may, however, be able to get our hands on the sources before then and get it in the pipeline for QA and such. Some of the critical issues (potential remotely exploited code execution) can be mitigated by turning off Javascript, but not all, as there is one issue that I am told that can be triggered by HTML tags. From MFSA 2006-18 http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2006/mfsa2006-18.html, http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-0749: A particular sequence of HTML tags that reliably crash Mozilla clients was reported by an anonymous researcher via TippingPoint and the Zero Day Initiative. The crash is due to memory corruption that can be exploited to run arbitary code. Mozilla mail clients will crash on the tag sequence, but without the ability to run scripts to fill memory with the attack code it may not be possible for an attacker to exploit this crash. These issues affect Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird 1.x before 1.5 and 1.0.x before 1.0.8, Mozilla Suite before 1.7.13, and SeaMonkey before 1.0, according to CVE-2006-0749. Be careful out there! We'll get these out for Legacy as soon as we can. Updates have been announced for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora Core 5. It should be easy enough to rebuild it and provide them for Fedora Legacy. Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Good news....
Jesse Keating wrote: On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 16:49 -0600, Jeff Sheltren wrote: Hi Jesse, this is good news indeed. Are you planning to have both of those enabled by default, or will updates-testing be disabled? None of it is enabled by default. Fedora upstream still want users to make a choice to use it, however the path to make the choice is rather easy. Flip a bit in an existing file and you're done. Fedora legacy-updates-released repository should be enabled by default IMO. Since the updates are not directly pushed into the updates-released repository, users still have the option to disable it easily if they dont want it some odd reason but the default should be favorable to non technical end users and provide the updates in a smooth transition from Fedora Core to Fedora Legacy. Fedora Extras has repository has been shipped enabled by default since Fedora Core 4 and I dont see a single reason why Fedora Legacy is different. Flip a bit in an existing file if you *dont* want it and Pirut might add a graphical interface to do that even. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: So with the new build software that we're having good success with we can produce x86_64 packages (and with future hardware donations ppc packages too). We've been spinning all FC3 updates with x86_64 packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3). This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in build systems. Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages. So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system? Or should we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting x86_64? (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages) I welcome your input. So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems used by Fedora Core or the ones used for Fedora Extras be spared a few cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The website needs a highlighted list of such documentation. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems used by Fedora Core or the ones used for Fedora Extras be spared a few cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The website needs a highlighted list of such documentation. When I brought up the thought of using the Extras build system for doing Legacy updates, it was turned down and requested that we use our own infrastructure. Honestly I don't remember the reasons behind this, but I think a lot of it was we're still carrying around content for RHL. Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more precisely. As far as money/resources, this is actually something I'm looking to Red Hat for. Red Hat wants the Fedora project to continue to grow, and Legacy is part of that project. I'm waiting for after FC5 is released so that we have some cycles for other project tasks, such as getting a copy of the CVS trees for our use and a few other things. At that time I'd like to talk to them about some infrastructure, or revisit the idea of using Extras infrastructure for Legacy building and publishing. I think we need to start sharing all the infrastructure more commonly within the various sub projects. Fedora directory server for example is using their own wiki for some odd reason (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page). The infrastructure pieces can be part of Red Hat or external to it but if there is already something available for Fedora Core or Extras, we need to take advantage of that. I dont understand the reluctance in doing this. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more precisely. Again, I'm not quite sure what it was. I just don't remember. I think it was discussed during a Fedora board meeting. I could ask the board if they remembered or if minutes were taken. Ya. It would be good to see an yes or no along with the details so that we understand better where the bottle neck is if any. So as far as Legacy goes, we're using the Fedora wiki, we're considering collapsing all of our website into the Wiki, we're moving to use the same software as Extras, moving to get our repo data in Core directly, send announcements via fedora-announce, etc... If our systems are in the same place as Extras systems, and Fedora Sysadmins have access to them as well, and we share of the publish space, is that not integration? I don't think we need to shove other projects onto the same systems that do Extras builds. The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt be happening. This is not about shoving anything but tapping into the resources available till we can separate it more in the future if thats desirable. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt be happening. This is not about shoving anything but tapping into the resources available till we can separate it more in the future if thats desirable. This 'donation' could come from Red Hat, much like the Extras systems came from Red Hat. The thing is we want separation now, so rather than get settled into a system and then move out later, we'd rather do it right to begin with. Some of the resources can be shared, such as a repo of all the Fedora packages to pull from on a high speed link. So think of it as adding a couple more systems into the existing infrastructure and just tagging them for use by Legacy. I dont think legacy is going to be using the build system as much as core and extras. It might be better to use a common pool of build systems separated by access time or build cycles rather than a physical allocation of individual build systems. In other words, does the current model of separation serve any real purpose other than being theoretically more clean? -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FC3 yum instructions
Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:50 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: Why do we have it in two places? That just leads to confusions and things being out of sync. Just make a new page named YumFC3Detailed and then link to it from the main http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy page. Why? To me it seems we should have either one or the other, not both. Honestly because I'd like to start moving all documentation into the wiki. This is where the rest of the Fedora projects have their documentation. The need for our own webspace may go away in the future. For those who hate the wiki with a passion, we will have a CMS system soon in fedoraproject.org. Plone+Zope and a few other custom utilities and scripts. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Hi Other distros do have better QA, as Red Hat itself says about FCx. RHEL has, per Red Hat, better QA than FC. Comparing a commercial product to a community project is unfair. Lets hear about QA processes documented in other community projects. Eh? My comment, as I asserted again, was about all Linux distros. None of them has adequate QA This is not a discussion about personal opinions on QA policies within all distributions including commercial ones. Only about whether Fedora legacy can improve itself to match a better policy within the community distributions. . But I know of nobody who has proposed to move software automatically from a test state to a release state merely based on time elapsed except for FC and FCL. Feel free to point to Fedora legacy a better documented policy within the community distributions or better yet contribute towards improving it. The time spend in discussions on the list could be directed towards actual work. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Mike McCarty wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: This is not a discussion about personal opinions on QA policies within I haven't presumed to dictate the content of your messages, or state what your intended topic was. Please grant me the same privilege. Or are you acting as a moderator? No but stick to topic. Thats common courtesy. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Hi Maybe we (Fedora Legacy) need to define the process of getting a package from bug report (or SA) to QA released state, and stop arguing who is at fault or how to bypass QA. If everyone knows the process and follows it we all can benefit... Maybe, its time I started witting something! A document on the whole process for everyone to review and agree upon... unless something like this already exists... which I've never seen. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
James Kosin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting. OK, It is a little buried in the clutter. I've seen this page many times, but never really dig-ed into it. It is referred from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy which has a link from the frontpage. How is that buried in clutter?. What can we do to improve that?\ -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Mike McCarty wrote: Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 02:31 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Ok then, it seems to me that there is no longer any distinction between the released repository, and the test repository. So, please send out an e-mail three days before the first timed release so I can pull a last tested version before removing the legacy repository from my yum configuration. I appreciate your concern mike, however if we have people testing during the timeout period, then there would be no untested packages. If I see I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. If people are interested in testing and providing feedback they would be able to do that within the specified time limit. If a sufficient amount of people are not interested in providing feedback either the platform can be dropped out of the legacy maintenance or the update can be pushed into the main legacy repository after QA work done by the packager. That is the proposal. The way you can help is either by doing the QA work or suggesting alternative proposals that would help in preventing important security and bug fixes lagging in updates testing for a infinite amount of time awaiting feedback. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
James Kosin wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: It is referred from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy which has a link from the frontpage. How is that buried in clutter?. What can we do to improve that?\ Don't get personal, I'm talking semantics here about not outlining them as steps. I am not getting personal. I am asking for suggestions to help improve the accessibility of the content since you believe it is cluttered now. ex: The first one is named 'QASubmit'... OK maybe a limitation of wiki here and not someone's exact wording... but, maybe a description saying Package Resubmitting Procedures could be better. Something pointing to the fact the page is a procedural form instead of a simple description. There is no limitation in the wiki on page lengths but we dont want very long wiki page names that makes it harder to remember. The explanations or headings within the pages can be as descriptive as you want them to be. Even something like follow these steps or procedures Do you want to try and help make it better?. Register your name in the wiki and let me know so that I can add you to the edit group. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Mike McCarty wrote: Jesse Keating wrote: Our hope is that if this proposal scares some people, it will scare them into finding ways to help out the project so that little to no packages escape updates-testing w/out some QA done on it. It doesn't frighten me at all, but it does discourage me from using the repository. Hopefully see the need for contributors to do the actual work involved including QA and look into that instead of moving away from the project. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Mike McCarty wrote: Eric Rostetter wrote: Quoting Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe to testing. No, the Legacy Project has _proposed_ to that, at least in your opinion. It was followed by something like unless we get a lot of objection so please, if you object, let it be known. I did object, and then I saw that the decision was *made*. A decision hasnt been made. Even if one has been made it can be reverted. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Marc Deslauriers wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:44 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: Since Legacy is no longer in my yum configuration, it's no longer an issue for me, good or bad. I don't wish to subscribe to testing. Since testing and release have been merged, I have unsubscribed from release. If the security notices on FC2 get severe enough, I'll just move on to CentOs, Scientific Linux, or Debian. Since I'm already helping administer a Debian box, it might make sense to move to that. Just out of curiosity, what are the Debian, CentOS and Scientific Linux QA procedures? Maybe Fedora Legacy could use some of them to get FL releases up to their standards. They do have documented QA procedures, right? You think?. I am not so sure they are well documented at all and Debian says on http://qa.debian.org/ We know that, at the moment, there is no real quality assurance for Debian, in a conventional meaning of that term. Feel free to look for better QA processes than Fedora legacy within the community distributions and suggest ideas. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
Hi Yes, my indictment earlier was for *all* distributions of Linux. But Legacy has gone further than I can follow along, that's all. We are merely discussing a proposal so legacy process hasnt gone further at all. You also state that other distributions QA process is better. How do we know?. If they are better are you willing to get involved in QA with the legacy project to help it be better?. Thats what we need. More contributors working on it. Other discussions is just fluff. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Contributor License Agreement (CLA)?, Re: Wiki page updated
Hi Fedora Foundation does not mention anything about that. It has no say or control over who provides support services for Fedora as far as I know. The foundation is a overall management and delegation authority. It can bless, reject existing or proposed Fedora Projects or choose to shutdown stale projects or entities within Fedora as a extreme measure. It does not micro manage any of the sub projects including legacy beyond that level. I will add to this since it was asked to me off list. What does the presence of foundation mean for the legacy project? Generally you dont have to worry about the foundation other than potentially funding. The foundation has accepted this project as a formal one and the legal as well as management practices will in general codify existing practices in this project rather than requiring to change to fit in some rigid structure however there are some potential changes like the CLA which might be projected for everyone's benefit and for the management to be streamlined across various Fedora Projects. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Ps: It would be helpful if people can ask questions in the list itself. I dont want to repeat answers individually for everyone. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Proposed changes to Fedora Legacy Project
Hi Hi Rahul, I just browsed through some fedora-devel-list posts from this month, so far all I see is two people in a thread: RFE: Retire Fedora Core 4 only _after_ FC6 has been released. who mention that they think legacy has negative connotation(s). Are there other posts I'm missing, or is that what you were referring to? -Jeff After FC6 part is not important here. Whats important is that several users in the list have expressed their opinion that the term legacy has negative canotations associated with it. I do not feel so. In fact I think legacy is a perfectly suitable name for what this project stands for but we can listen to the users here. If we do get more community contributions and users by doing something as simple as expanding on a name and lowering the barrier to entry by providing seamless transition between Fedora Core and Fedora Legacy, lets shoot for it.We need all the people we can get. If we have to set aside our own preferences and bend a little to enable this to happen, so be it. -- Rahul Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
