On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:11:53 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...snip...
First to be clear, I am not sure I really care one way or the other on
this proposal, but happy to try and add more information... ;)
> (a) The reason for wanting packages to be retired so quickly has not
> been made clear by rel-eng.
So, my understanding of the reasoning is that currently we retire
packages only once a cycle before branching. If we do this more often
it means there's less orphan packages that go out with the next stable
release (how many that is I don't know).
So, you have foo getting orphaned now say, it would still go out with
f21, and only be retired in f22.
> (b) The biggest reason for people to use one distro over another is
> based on number of packages available to be installed. By retiring
> packages more quickly we inevitably reduce this number thereby making
> Fedora less popular.
I'm not sure I agree with your first statement there. ;)
If we split texlive into 5,000 seperate packages Fedora would suddenly
become more popular?
I think at least a good number of people want the packages they need
for whatever purpose, but they want them to be packaged well and
maintained when they have issues with them.
> (c) An orphaned package is not necessarily a risk ("security" has been
> mentioned here ...). Just because it might be a risk on rare
> occasions doesn't mean we have to throw out every orphaned package.
> Security bugs can sit around in non-orphaned packages too.
Sure. Orphaned packages also increase frustration some since no one
answers bug reports or updates them or rebuilds them.
> (d) 4 weeks is too short. Some people go on holiday for this long.
True.
kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
