On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:43 Juha Tuomala wrote: > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > current stable release nor support an official backports repo, an > > unofficial one will no doubt spring up, or an existing unofficial repo > > will pick up that role (for KDE, kde-redhat stable would probably be > > revived, currently it's mostly empty for Fedora as the kind of stuff > > which would be in there is usually just pushed as official Fedora > > updates). > > Go ahead, make that to your kde-hardcore-followers-repo. In my > understanding, that's what it has been for past years already > anyway. Third party repos are highway to hell unfortunately. Ask former OpenSuse users :( Of course - it's one of solutions. > > I would argue having this within Fedora infrastructure would be better as > > it would prevent proliferation of third-party repos replacing Fedora > > packages and the resulting compatibility issues (see e.g. the chaos > > we're having for RHEL with third-party repositories replacing official > > packages with newer versions and the resulting dependency hell) and as > > it would also provide a place for new versions of less commonly-used > > applications. > > So the thing is that KDE SIG wants to prevent any other activity and > keep the strings in own hands. That's why nobody can't enjoy the > upstream's intended stability in bugfix releases and plan major > upgrades. > > If someone wants to fork, whatever, let them do it. That's why > Fedora moves to the git, to make it easier. > > > That said, IMHO the best solution is still to have this stuff in the > > official updates. But it's true that the kind of issues some users are > > having with KDE 4.4 are unfortunate. This particular Akonadi issue hasn't > > shown up during testing or it would have been considered a blocker. > > What you've just proved could have been enough for some companies > trying to run Fedora on their employees desktops and they probably > think that they've seen enough. TCO is rising too high when you > cannot do sane stable release updates. Fedora is not for companies - with one year of lifetime it's not very well suited for any long-term deployment. Use Cent OS - it's not I don't want to see Fedora there, it's just reality. And Cent OS is just older and more stable Fedora... > In other words, SIG's current policy is doing more harm than good > for Fedora. > > > But I think having yet another thread about update policies will be > > frowned upon by the moderators. Instead, let's please think about > > repairing this breakage now that it happened, i.e. get bug reports filed > > etc. > > Yes, let's fix the bug instead the policy that caused it in the > first place, sigh. > > > Tuju > > -- > Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta. -- Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
