Am 26.01.2012 08:06, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:15:51 AM >> Subject: Re: UsrMove feature breaking "yum upgrade" upgrades from older releases to F17? >> >> Am 26.01.2012 05:02, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: >>> On 01/26/2012 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>>> i see really nothing wrong in demanding not break things randomly >>>> without >>>> VERY good reasons and in this context it does relly not matter >>>> if opensource /paid / whatever >>> >>> Nobody breaks things randomly. Sometimes changes have >>> unintentional >>> side effects. >> >> since this happens much too often it should be considered >> what is wrong in the way making big changes and if it is >> really needed / useful to make them so big >> >> this transition could be done with less drastic effects by >> start change the locations of updated packages, targeting >> empty top-level dirs in the next release and file bugreports >> for every single file existing after that >> >> finally you have the directories empty and they can be removed >> >> the first step could be even install the new binaries to >> /usr/bin/ and create symlinks in /bin/ which will be >> removed in the next release >> > Let me start that I'll miss yum upgrade badly! the package manager and clean update transitions are so much imprtant that breaking them is no option as long anybody works on changes wants to say he does things right > Looking at the feature page though is making me think that this is > really incremental approach. Move everything in usr this release and benefit from it in > consequent releases(F-18) (snapshoting and etc.). If a more conservative approach is > taken we will have e.g. everything moved to /usr in F-17, symlinks from bin removed in F-18, > bin|sbin|lib made symlinks in F-19 and etc. If we move that slow by the time we have a feature > it will so badly outdated that it might be irrelevant or already a commodity so noone is considering > Fedora as a contender. Note that I speak overall not just in the Linux/Unix world. in other words: "better making things fast to be first and early instead make them right" yes, this is exactly what happens the last years and makes me so angry because it results in NEVER have software working right because you have always some thing broken with the legitimation "but after that always will better" and sadly if this may be true for one piece the next goes down this way you will never ever in this life get things working fine at all and this should be the target and not making changes and development for its own the only result you have is the bad taste in the mouth "the question is not if anything is broken, the question is how many things are broken at the same time and hopefully most of them does not hurt too bad"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
