On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 06:08, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 04:57:08 +0200, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The problem is: RH/FC not having fixed "known bugs" prevents > > Fedora.US/FE from publishing packages for FC1. > > I'm personally not all that thrilled at having FE packagers target > publishing any new packages in current or old FC releases. I think new > FE publishing should target FC development and FE 'releases' should > freeze out on the same timescales as FC instead of obsessing over > trying to continue to base work on an FC release that is 1 or 2 month > away from being officially EOLd. That's not how Fedora.US works and not how it should work, IMO. > > I am talking about fixing an FC package to make it possible at all to > > get a new FE package for FC < FC(CURRENT) published. > > And i think this has to be case by case...its grey. Im going to be > wicked pissed, if I as a user have to download megs of updates just to > fix a packaging error that could have been worked around in the new FE > package by the packagers. Have a look at were the Megs come from you had downloaded in past updates for RH/FC: kernels, OpenOffice, kernels, glibc, kernels, gcc, kernels, php, kernels, sometimes KDE, kernels, sometimes Gnome ... These by far outweigh "a couple of small selected bug-fix updates". > > Right, this situation can't completely excluded, but if developers don't > > work too careless, the risk is pretty small. > > Thats pure optimizism on your part. No, realism - Remember, I am taking about decisions on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in most cases the consequences of such updates can be realistically estimated. In cases the consequences can't be seriously estimated, such update-requests should be rejected. If you now have a look at the packages RH/FC *did* update: The consequences of these updates can hardly be estimated. > > You don't develop on packages for FC1, I presume? > > FC1 is at best a month away from EOL (though im none too happy that > there hasnt been an actual FIRM date about FC1 EOL but ill save that > for another debate) if anyone is still considering building new > packages against FC1 at this point, its seems a foolhardy goal. Face the facts: People still are using FC1 and will continue to use it. And if Fedora Legacy should work out (Which I am very hesitant to believe), people will continue to use FC1 for quite a while. If Fedora Legacy should not work out and if FC+FE should not improve, I'd expect people to switch away from Fedora. > > IMO, this substantially weakens Fedora.US/FE and therefore causes damage > > the Fedora Project as a whole in longer terms. > > I think 6 month EOL's for Core make any argument about long term > projhect damage a little thin. cf. above. > Legacy with its current manpower and infrastructure IMO, the main issue is not manpower, but inefficiency, "friction" and lack of attractiveness. Get Fedora.US a much simplified infrastructure (Build system, package submission procedure, more automated QA, reliable servers, etc.), then run Fedora.US as a "rolling distribution", which takes over "maintenance of discontinued releases", have it contain attractive packages ... It's the way all 3rd parties roll their FC-AddOn repositories. Ralf -- Registered Linux User #26 http://counter.li.org
