Carlos, Could you expand on what you mean by GNOME in FC2 SMB being totally broken? Symptoms, etc.? I'm interested because that is my impression as well. I haven't posted much about that here (avoiding troll branding), but I would like to know what you are encountering. Maybe we can fix some of them together. Some of the issues I have with GNOME seem to have been there in FC1 as well. Just curious. Thanks. Steve Brenneis http://myorb.sourceforge.net On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 19:58, Carlos Rodrigues wrote: > Hi! > > This will be a bit long, so if you don't have anything better to do, > please bear with me. > > Since the days of Red Hat Linux 5.0, when I started using Linux, I have > followed a ritual with every new release. The ritual consists in looking > around for stuff that used to work and is now broken. Fortunately, the > server related stuff seems to be immune to obvious regressions, but that > cannot be said of desktop related stuff. Some of these regressions are > easy to fix (and I sometimes fix them myself) but the fixes have to wait > for the next release, where other regressions pop up... This is a never > ending cycle. > > In the days of Red Hat Linux, the situation was much worse, since the > only updates that appeared were security fixes (which are good), bug fix > updates were as rare as water in the desert. But today we are no much > better. > > So, what I'm saying is that there should be a more agressive update > policy to Fedora Core, new packages should go into updates-testing and > then updates except if there is a good reason not to. Let's have gaim as > an example, it is a piece of software with many shortcomings and which > gets better with every release. It's also a non intrusive package, and > so the new gaim that pops up in updates every couple of weeks is a > welcomed update. However, there is a nut package in "development" that > fixes some configuration file ownership stuff that stays there, although > it has no other change from the version in FC2. > > Stuff should never go into "development" unless there is a strong > reason, meaning "it breaks other packages", "it requires tons of > dependency updates, some of which possibly beaking other packages" or > "it changes basic stuff in the distro, like how initialization is done, > security is handled". FC2 should have a more evolutionary approach, > stuff like mozilla-1.7 should go directly into updates-testing. New FC > releases should mean big stuff like SELinux, kernel 2.6 and the likes, > meanwhile FC should be as close to development as possible (without that > big stuff). > > Basically I'm saying that FC should be "development" without the > dangerous suff. After all this is a distro for hobbyists which like to > be as close to the bleeding-edge as possible, without actually bleeding. > > Why do I say this? Because I feel that once a release is out, almost > everybody moves its attention onto the next one and forgets about us > folks. FC should not be the absolute bleeding edge, but it shouldn't > also be RHEL... evolution is needed. This would allow to squash bugs > earlier, meaning getting to a stable desktop (as in not crashing or > buggy, not feature-frozen) faster. > > I'm kind of sick of being between a rock and a hard place, either I use > a bleeding-edge distro and spend all my time bleeding or I use a over > conservative distro and never get new features... Am I totally clueless? > > Well, to be true, the same thing that I say above can be accomplished by > turning "updates-testing" into some sort of half-way between FC and > "development", more dynamic but not as risky. > > Carlos Rodrigues > > > PS: I was prompted into this because in FC2 smb with GNOME is totally > broken (amongst other things), and even if a GNOME 2.6.2 gets out I know > that it will never come out, FC3 will bring 2.8 and new stuff will > break. It's actually funny (in a bad way) that GNOME gets released as > frequently as FC, which means we always get a .0 release and not the > following bug fixes... damn! -- Steve Brenneis <sbrenneis@xxxxxxxxx>
