Dne 6.12.2012 17:31, Seth Vidal napsal(a):
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012, Jan Zelený wrote:
The original use case for SCLs is to provide a way to deliver newer
versions
of SW in stable distributions like RHEL/CentOS than those available
in the
core system and make sure system packages and collection packages don't
collide in any way (names, libraries, system paths, ...).
right and the motivators for the above are customers/users who have to
deal with their developers complaining about wanting a
specific/newer/older/intermediate version of some language or another
and its modules.
they complain to their ops people, they complain to fedora/red hat.
Oh common. You offended every developer on this ML. May be you should
consider that it is not just about developers, but it is also about
their management and customers who pays their bills.
In my previous job, we were developing application for our internal
customer. During development, we were free to use any library which
suited our needs. However, in some point, our customer was satisfied
with functionality he had and he didn't want to spent any more money on
development. Since that time, during maintenance, it was not any more my
choice what library of what version I will use, since the system was
built and running.
Now suddenly, after several years, the provider wants to quit their
services and the application needs to be migrated. That would be perfect
case for SC, because it would allow migration with lowest cost.
So what you would suggest? Was there any decision wrong in that process?
Vít
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
