On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Sure, this is comparable to the present situation. But it doesn't seem > like it makes things much better. > > * It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack > isn't going to be updated for F10 since the maintainers don't want to do > this and the policy wouldn't require it) > * It doesn't solve the follow-on issue of things being different between > major Fedora components (since gnome maintainers don't want to > participate but kde maintainers do) > * It makes things more complex (for instance, we would have to build > packages against multiple repository sets -- ie: [F12-release + > F12-updates-security] [F12-release + F12-updates-security + > F12-updates-adventurous] since there could be incompatibilities between > the packages in updates-security and updates-adventurous.). > * It makes more work for rel-eng to prepare and push the extra repos. The major thing it solves is it makes it possible to reliably get only 'conventional' updates. At present, as traditional security / bugfix updates are mixed up with more adventurous updates, you can't do this. An alternative would be to tag updates within a single repo in a way that yum and PackageKit understand and have appropriate configuration options to enable certain types of update, which would really be much the same situation, just organized slightly differently. Either way it's going to be some level of extra work for someone somewhere, I haven't denied that. Was just discussing the parameters of addressing (or not addressing) this issue. It's not possible to make all parties happy in the current framework, so either we change something, or we take a specific decision to make some parties unhappy, and justify that formally. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
