On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > We've had this discussion before, but to re-state my opinion: the only > sane way to handle this is multiple, discretionary update repositories. > A repository for security and stable bugfix updates, and a repository > for other updates - major version bumps whose purpose isn't solely to > fix a security issue or, with minimal changes, a clearly identified bug. > > It's more work, but it's the only workable consistent system that > doesn't restrict some maintainer from being able to do what they want to > do. A distribution with much fewer resources than Fedora (Mandriva) has > been using this system successfully, to the satisfaction of developers > and users, for several releases now. > > The system gives users the flexibility to choose whether they want a > 'traditional' stable update system, or a more adventurous, > version-upgrading system. And maintainers can choose whether or not they > want to take on the work of shipping updates in the adventurous > repository. In all cases, users and maintainers both know what each > repository is for, and what they'll be getting depending on which they > choose to use. <snip> +1 Would definitely be one way to solve this sort of problem. -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
