On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Peter Jones wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/28/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Peter Jones wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 07/28/2010 01:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 11:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:04:46PM +0200, Florent Le Coz wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 28/07/2010 14:52, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> >>>>>> In my opinion including software that even upstream says is not ready is
> >> >>>>>> for a distribution that's "lost their way". We can still be a leading
> >> >>>>>> distribution and not include pre-release software. Especially pre-release
> >> >>>>>> software that's not only in our critical path, but also something that
> >> >>>>>> almost all of us use every day.
> >> >>>>> I agree, but doesn't that mean that Firefox 4.0 won't be available in
> >> >>>>> F14 at all and will only be in F15?
> >> >>>>> I think it would be a huge drawback for Fedora 14.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It would be huge if there people who can't live without it didn't have
> >> >>>> any other way of getting it than having it pre-packaged. I think
> >> >>>> Firefox 4 looks to be fantastic, but the truth is that people only
> >> >>>> have to wait a few months for a release with it pre-packaged, if
> >> >>>> they're not able to add it on their own.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'd rather we provide them a package than have people going out and
> >> >>> installing software from third-party sources (yes, mozilla.org is hardly
> >> >>> Evil, but it sets a bad precedent). I really don't see much of a reason
> >> >>> we can't ship it as a post-release update. We'd probably want to do that
> >> >>> in the end anyway, because Mozilla tends to stop security supporting old
> >> >>> branches anyway; it's certainly plausible that they stop supporting 3.x
> >> >>> during F14's support lifetime.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just because it isn't in the F14 repo doesn't mean it won't be available to
> >> >> people who really want a packaged version earlier - look at spot's chromium
> >> >> packages, for example. And I really expect the F14-F15 time frame to be a very
> >> >> similar situation with Firefox - just because it's released doesn't mean there
> >> >> isn't some time to wait before it's really shippable. 6 months won't be the
> >> >> end of the world, especially if it's added to an add-on repo someplace so
> >> >> people can get it if they really want something other than ff3.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps it's time to figure out how to make things like Tom's chromium
> >> > more official. Find actual hosting/mirroring for that stuff, make a clear
> >> > path to get people to it but also letting them know "hey, your milage may
> >> > vary".
> >>
> >> I would really like to see kopers happen, yes. That'd be great.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe I'm mistaken, I thought kopers was just for building. Does it
> > encompass hosting, distribution and such?
>
> IIRC yes, it just needs to happen .... someday ;)
>
Maybe baby steps? Small incremental changes. Sure some features will be
missing that kopers will provide. But perhaps we could just create a
Fedora-13-devel tag in koji, push it to it's own repo or to individual
fedora-13-spot / fedora-13-mmcgrath repos. One that doesn't migrate to
updates-testing or updates. It just sits there.
We're going to need something like this when kopers comes out anyway
right? I figure smaller steps towards that goal is better then one big
one.
-Mike
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
