On 01/28/2012 01:10 AM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
I read the list thread concerning a Fedora rolling release distribution,
and I found it interesting enough to compel me to join the list and
weigh in.
First, I think a rolling release Fedora is a fantastic idea. I'm certain
that it's possible, since I've been pulling packages from 15, 16, and
Rawhide downstream to Fuduntu which still has a lot of 14 left at it's
core with much success.
Some potential reasons why it would be a good idea.. A lot of us don't
like to risk a major upgrade every 6 months to a year, or reinstall. We
can always save a dump of rpms, and not format /home but still, that's a
lot of unnecessary work. If you aren't in a position to do a full backup
(right or wrong) it becomes even more of a challenge.
It's also very convenient to upgrade to Firefox 9 for example without
having to go to Remi, or spend hours upgrading everything. If it rolls,
everything gets upgraded over time. Huge convenience factor here.
I just pulled LibreOffice 3.4.4 from Fedora 16 down to Fuduntu. I'm also
shipping Firefox 9.
If you were interested in going forward with a rolling release model,
your community is large enough that it doesn't have to be your core
product. It could though be the foundation for your core product.
I'd recommend continuing your release cycle, shifting to rolling Fedora,
and point release from that.
Rawhide IMHO is "rolling", but it's also very unstable, as you all well
know.
I think what a lot of end-users don't understand is that Fedora sits
_very_ close to upstream and in the most part, package updates are
determined by the maintainer, not Fedora. What that means is a lot of
the show-stopping bugs meet their end in rawhide before they even make
it to the other rolling release distros. If the need is for the latest
and greatest of package _x_ then that is a packaging issue and that
should be directed to the maintainer of said package - Fedora does not
decide when/if a package should be upgraded - the packager does. For
major changes, the Fedora KDE model seems to work pretty well I think.
I don't really see the need for a rolling release... if end users want
that warm-happy feeling that they're using the latest and greatest then
thay should contact the maintainer or provide a patch.
The idea thrown out there that discussed using a waterfall repository
method is solid, we have been doing it for over year now.
Development, Rawhide - done.
Testing - Reasonably stable, packages promoted from development when
they are ready.
Stable - After you have tested the packages with a reasonably wide
audience, promote them to stable.
Point in time release from your stable repository as Fedora 17, 18, 19.
This model been working for us for a short while now.
You guys are already set up for success, IMHO much more so than some of
the other distributions out there. That's why I chose to base off of it.
Are we doing some things wrong? Definitely, but we are also doing some
things well enough to know that Fedora would be wildly successful with a
rolling release.
As for the comments about users upset that they suddenly get GNOME 3 via
a rolling upgrade, that's a communications issue and also what spins and
remixes are for.
That is my $.02. I really hope to see Fedora go this route, but if
Fedora decides to stick to the current release model (which is already
excellent) those that want an RPM based rolling release are welcome to
come help out at Fuduntu. :D
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
