On 11/05/2012 05:28 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sure, like I said in another mail, we've got better at that than before.
But as I also said in the same mail, you still have to do a version
upgrade every twelve months. That alone is ridiculous for a 'stable'
operating system.
This is an important point---it makes it difficult to deploy Fedora
for other people. When the end-of-support comes, it usually means
having to reinstall, because upgrade can take unbounded time, if
problems pop up. Additionally, in my experience, a reinstall often
results in a better configuration, free of grandfathered suboptimal
settings.
I keep thinking about a scheme to roll over an EOL Fedora into a
closest possible CENTOS. It's not trivial because I can't just look
for the CENTOS that matches the original Fedora release, because of
the subsequent updates. It would have to look at the as-is system and
try to figure out the best matching CENTOS release. I am thinking
about a sum-of-squared-differences-like distance metric: calculate sum
over all packages of (installed_version - CENTOS_X_version)^2, for
several CENTOS_X versions, and chose the one giving the smallest
value. Of course some packages (glibc, kernel) would have a higher
weight, but that could be incorporated (\sum_i((v1_i-v2_i)^2/wght_i)).
Well I personally would rather have centos and other rhel clones unite
to support a lts release of Fedora instead since it does not take more
then a missing sysadmin or rhel business decision to more or less render
those community incapacitated....
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
