Christopher Blizzard schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > [...] >> So IMHO the the distributor has to make sure people get what they want. >> My preferred solution for now would be two have different update >> channels: One that gets only "Security fixes and crucial bug fixes" (so >> more careful then Fedora Core currently), one that gets new versions of >> most package (rolling release, similar like Extras was, so a bit more >> bold then Fedora Core currently), while the crucial new stuff (new >> python for example) gets developed in the devel repository. > > You've just described the RHEL/Fedora split quite effectively. Hmmm, I tend to disagree a bit -- the difference between a more carefully maintained Fedora and RHEL is that you have to wait 18 - 24 months to get new stuff with a new RHEL. That's fine and great for Enterprise, it's to slow for most home users afaics. So I think all the following use-cases would find users, and the mix should make everyone happy: - RHEL/CentOS -> seven years of support, only important updates, new stuff if you want round about all 18 months - Fedora, stable updates channel -> only important updates, get new stuff once a year (if you skip a release) or all six months (if you want) - Fedora, bold updates channel -> get most new stuff all the time, test stuff out before it hits the stable updates channel while getting the really new stuff all six months - Fedora, development -> get new stuff constantly CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
