On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:56 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote: > Great thread. Glad someone appreciates it :) > On 08/06/2009 01:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to > > satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository. > > There was some talk about additional tagging in RPM being available in > Fedora 13, wasn't there? Perhaps if that could propagate through the > build, repo, and yum tools there would be a way to solve for various > branches. We discussed that a few branches of the thread back ;). The principal problem with that is that it's tricky to have multiple 'tracks' within one update repository - so if a package does get an 'adventurous' update then hits a security bug, there's no way to have a separate update without the adventurous change but with the security bug fixed. You then don't have the ability to choose the 'stable but secure' path - you're stuck with either the release package (stable but insecure) or the updated package that includes the adventurous change (secure but potentially unstable). > MythDora is a spin that's worth studying here. It provides a specific > purpose, is pretty well-tuned to that purpose, and doesn't necessarily > update for every Fedora release. > > One can imagine a 'Fedora Solid' spin that pays special attention to QA, > maybe only plans on every-other release, sometimes back-porting > release+1 things that make a huge win, maybe takes longer to compose > than a regular Fedora release. There was some talk about extending > updates to 18 months, which would make such a spin feasible. I'm not sure you could _make_ a 'Solid' spin unless there was a Solid update path to work off. -- 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
