On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:57:18PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 09:48:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > Packages for Infrastructure and Clouds, I think). I was thinking about > > > this > > > more recently in the context of "things we need for Fedora.next in the > > > coming year or so". The new repo might target both EL and Fedora and > > > provide > > > alternative versions maintained on, say, a 3-year lifecycle. > > Yeah -- I think that something like this could be good. A repo with > > a 3 year lifecycle may make sense for RHEL more than Fedora as the > > basesystem we're building on is still active at the end of that period. > > I'm thinking here about SCLs (or possibly other stack/env tech) that might > target current supported Fedora but have a longer lifecyle of its own (with > best-effort compatibility for three years). > > I keep coming back to this idea because it's what people ask me for. :) > Ah I see. I think present thinking around SCLs has revolved around lifetime for indivudal SCLs but having a repository wide lifetime could be either better or a useful additional guarantee.
-Toshio
pgpC7ZOTAYkVO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
