Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:05 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
For me, that's easy. I don't want updates that the packagers don't
consider "stable". It sure sounds to me like Christopher feels the same way.
I am willing to take the latest upstream builds because the maintainer
considers them "safe". I am not willing to use rawhide because it's
considered a free-for-all. (I don't use updates-testing either, which
IMO if I slurped everything relevant from updates-testing, would be
about the same thing as using rawhide.)
So if rawhide had an updates-testing like repo, you wouldn't mind using
it?
If that put an end to stuff like 'sorry, that last glibc rpm bricks your
system if you have the misfortune of installing it'... maybe. As I said,
right now my "line" is "packages that the maintainers consider stable".
If "rawhide" became that (and some new "rawhide-testing" or such for the
current free-for-all), then I suppose I might use it. I'd also ask how
that differs in any significant way from a rolling release.
To be clear, 1. I would be in favor of a rolling release system, and 2.
development /needs/ a "free for all" environment. So please don't take
the above as being in any way opposed to such an environment existing...
just so long as I can opt out of it ;-).
Oh, and on a related note, it would be really helpful if it was possible
to enable updates-testing only for certain packages (and when needed,
dependencies thereof) on a permanent whitelist basis.
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Thank you for reading all the way to this .sig. You may stop reading
now. Really. It is safe to stop. There is no more content. Why are you
still reading?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
