On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 13:07 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 09 April 2007 12:56:59 Tony Nelson wrote: > > Although it would be best for Fedora users if all > > updated packages were retained and available for downgrading, certainly the > > kernel deserves special consideration, as changes to the kernel can prevent > > the entire system from working. > > And where do we find this mythical beast of unlimited storage? ... and this is why open discussions always turn into spam fights. I asked for a special consideration concerning old kernel releases (!) that -were- released as an update for -active- fedora releases. (Read: F-Current, F-Current - 1). Soon Mr Matok turned the "kernel" into "software", and the need to keep the kernel -on the server- into supporting proprietary non-GPL (!!!) kernel modules (!!!) and from there on, we need mythical beast with unlimited storage and hordes of men to support the 2.4.x kernel Fedora Core 1 just because nVidia/ATI/VMWare/etc/<insert binary module name> refuses to fix their bugs. If I can be allowed to stick to the subject, lets talk about numbers. Each kernel release (x86_64 in my case, including the kernel-devel.[i686/i586], xen and kdump) eats around 80MB. Keeping the 5 latest releases translates to 400MB. In comparison, each OO release is ~600MB. (660MB to be exact) -updates currently hold two OO releases - add -core to the mix, and OO alone eats 1800MB. Now I may be dead wrong, and wasting 400MB of old kernels (for released versions only - not rawhide/test releases) is way-above-and-beyond Fedora's current capacity. Maybe Fedora should store the last released kernel of each minor release. (2.6.17-xxx, 2.6.18-xxx, etc) - I don't know, lets here some open discussion about it. ... Somehow I doubt that writing off my post as "not enough storage, against policy - good bye" can be considered constructive in any type or form. - Gilboa -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
