On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:58 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 3/23/06, Hans Kristian Rosbach <hk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just thought I'd voice this before the maintainers just let go > > and completely focus on the one for FC6. I bet obvious fixes > > will be detected in the starting phase of developing for FC6 > > and those might be backported to FC5 aswell. > > Installer bugs happen with pretty much each release. fixed boot.isos > are usually made available as links in bugzilla tickets as issues are > addressed and I believe there is a mechanism which is applied to > incorporate fixes into the mirrors so people doing network installs > can avoid some problems. > > But at no point have I ever seen any discussion at any time which > suggests the release team is interested in spinning up replacement > isos and distributing them. And quite frankly I don't think this is > the most appropriate time to suggest a change in the release model > used. > I don't think your request for fc5 anaconda updates post release day > is going to change any minds as to the support tradeoffs associated > with official respins that incorporate installer changes. This is not at all what I mean. I mean the anaconda.rpm that I can download and install on my already installed FC5 computer. There is bound to be some amount of bugs biting that could be fixed very easily. I just ask that you sit down in a few weeks time and take a look over what went wrong with FC5 and backport the obvious bugfixes from rawhide. After that you probably wouldn't have to do anything more with it. I made unofficial FC4 respins (FC4.1 and FC4.2), these ONLY use the official rpms from the fedora project. None of them rebuilt by me. Because of this I was stuck with the known buggy anaconda.rpm that never ever got a single update to fix even the most obvious bugs after the FC4 release. Tracking rawhide is going to prove very difficult since I have no intimate knowledge about anaconda and what parts are sensitive to changes. Also this would defeat my purpose of using only the official rpms (base/updates only) from current release. Dont know what more to say, but I'm a bit disappointed. > This is the sort of thing that should be debated during the > testing phase, so plans can be in place to support respins if you are > able to convince the people who have to do them that its a good idea. We had a fairly long discussion on this list about this during devel. -HK -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
