On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen <thomasj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious >> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is, >> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die >> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide. >> >> Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well >> because it will die "soon"? > > So to you fixing major bugs and security problems == not supported? I > don't think so. It's not what i call "support it well". I can have security fixes with every stupid distro in the wild. What's so special there? >> Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for >> "die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it? > > Because a distribution is about more than being a collection of > packages! And? > Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package > collection instead of a coherent distribution. Remeber the days of a > fairly small package set in RHL, when people dumped whatever they found > on rpmfind.net on their system? They'd then ask a question on a list > about RHL version foo, and you just about had to get an "rpm -qai" to > figure out what was going on. > > Right now, if somebody asks a question about F12 Firefox, you have a > reasonable expectation that it is 3.5.x. If they ask about F12 KDE, who > knows. > > A distribution should have a coherent set of rules about what makes up > the distribution. Fedora has lots of rules and guidelines, but really > nothing about what packagers should do about updates. Without that, > Fedora is turning into chaos. > > What we have right now is the wild west; what we need is update > sheriffs. If you want RHEL, use it. > On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora > (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months. That > is an insane amount of churn. Users do complain about it, when they > install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend > hours downloading updates. And they *have* to update everything because? >> If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it. >> I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update >> everything. > > Because users can't be expected to know what needs updating and what > does not. > > If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite > what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's > what we are getting in some quarters), then stop the releases every 6 > months. There's no point; put a little more effort into the respins > instead and release those every 4-6 months as point releases. Have an > annual roll-up release and then keep rolling. > > If instead Fedora is going to try to be a stable, coherent distribution, > then only bug (including security) fix and probably hardware support > (e.g. kernel, xorg) updates (and any necessary dependencies) should be > pushed. Minor version updates are okay, but major version updates (and > ABI breakage) are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Please read the answer i posted to Mathieu Bridon. Saves me to write everything twice, thank you. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
