Talk about feeling like an idiot. I was inches from ranting about how a fix to the pilot-link problem by Mark G. Adams (http://zeniv.linux.org.uk/pub/people/mark_adams/Readme.txt) was never imported into the -test/-updates repositories when I decided to do one last check... Seems that two days ago (6/9/2005) these packages entered -testing. (Is it the same packages?) Hopefully these RPMS will solve one of my (and others) biggest problems with FC4. (I last counted more then 10 different bug reports about it) I should thank God that I decided to recheck my facts before posting. Never the less, this does pose a question: These packages were available since the end of July. It too them a month and a half to enter -testing. We have no idea who users quit using FC due to this bug. How can the yet-to-be founded FC foundation help external contributers (Such as Mr. Adams) get their fixes into the system faster? Second, how can the project facilitate the transfer of information, read, telling people that there's an available test fix in -testing, and that they should give it a try. (Assuming that most people, including myself, stay clear of -testing unless they really have to) Another example: The python-gtksourceview has been solved in rawhide. There's no information about the fix (Read: what was the fix; what was changed; etc) in the bugzilla entry. Though I have no experience in Python, I'm willing to spend time trying to check if it can be back-ported to FC4. However, without the required information (about how the bug was solved); with no access to cvs (to see the change logs), there's nothing I can do. Again, I'm well aware that the FC foundation is severely under-staffed. This is more of a reason to help external contributers help. Gilboa On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 17:54 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been lurking this list for quite some time now, waiting for a good > reason to post... > Seems that I found one. > > Let me first point out that this is not a rant; I understand that the > Fedora Core is supplied "as is" and that the FC development team isn't > working *for me*. In short, they don't owe me anything. > Plus, being a Linux developer myself, I can appreciate the *perceived* > (in my eyes) lack of interest in dealing with (what-seems-to-be-in-my- > eyes) bugs, when the FC5 development is at full swing. > > I'm not trying to start a flame war; I am trying to understand the > direction in which the Fedora Core foundation is heading, and make my > own decisions as a result. (Roll back machines to FC3, keep others at > FC2/3, switch to another distro, etc) > > Three months ago FC4 was released; as expected, being bleeding edge FC4 > was buggy as hell (compared to FC2/FC3). However, living on the bleeding > edge comes at a price, and I'm willing to pay it. > > Like any good user, I did my best to report what-ever bugs I saw: > Some of them were fix promptly: > > Missing KDE screensavers: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161312 > > LVM2 boot problems: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=164250 > > But others were not: > gpilotd segfaults: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=156646 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=160926 > > Python gtksourceview: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=162403 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161223 > > GDB segfaults when debugging libraries: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161401 > > Thus far, nothing new. FC4 has known bugs that are being (slowly?) > addressed. > > However, here comes my problem: > FC5 is 6 months (at least) away. > The lvm2 problem was only fixed in -updates; it still plagues new > installations. (I saw a couple of threads about it in fedoraforum.) The > fix did not go downstream to a new ISO images. > FC4 users cannot use their Palm and a full fix is no where to be seen. > GDB is effectively dead when debugging libraries. > And python python-gtksourceview, while fixed in rawhide, will not making > it (at least to my knowledge) into FC4. > > My question is simple: > Is it the view of the FC foundation, that the FC4 bug-fixing is taking > second seat to the FC5 development? > Is it acceptable, again, in the FC foundation's eyes, that up until the > release of the FC5, people will not be able to sync with their Palm or > have dead installations on their hands (lvm problem) > I may be wrong here, isn't the lvm problem big enough to require ISO > remaster? > Isn't the Palm problem serious enough to warrant a switch to an older > pilotd (and gnome-pilot)? > Am I the only to feel that these problems are critical? > > Again let me stress, that being free-riding user (Sadly enough, I've yet > to pitch in and find some why to contribute to FC) I'm in no position to > rant about the stability of FC4. > However, being someone with vested interest in the FC project, I'm very > interested in the view of the FC project about the above. > > Thanks, > Gilboa Davara. > > -- Gilboa Davara Nice Systems. Voice: 972 9 775 3156 Fax: 972 9 775 3070 Mobile: 972 54 496 8909 Email: <mailto:gilboada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:gilboad@xxxxxxxx> <mailto:gilboad@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
