On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:19 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Dec 20, 2007 10:05 AM, Michael Schwendt > <mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That's easy. The spec %changelog entry already ought to explain why the > > update is important. It's the many hundreds small/minor/unimportant > > updates which fill the updates repository and drift away from the original > > release of the distribution. It leads to a scenario where after firstboot > > you are offered so many packages that you're annoyed. > > The spoken question here is... are we doing releases the 'right' way > for our target users? Which target user audience? As far as I am concerned (power user, developer): No, Fedora doesn't. > Is our release and updates policy inconsistent? Yes. I feel Fedora is applying rel-eng strategies which do not fit into a "forward looking" distro aiming at early adoption of "leading edge technology". IMO, it's natural for a leading edge/early technology adopter distro to see frequent updates. But also note that "leading edge" shouldn't mean "instable" or "premature". Unfortunately I also feel this is what some people (esp. some people at RH) seem to be wanting to treat Fedora as. > If lots and lots of updates cause annoyance for fresh installed users, > should we be making a bigger deal about point people to re-spins > as an option? Yes. I think, there should be regular respins of the disk-images. Just consider the current situation: The FC8 *.isos already have become obsolete and are not really worth downloading anymore. More generally speaking, /me thinks the concept of "gold image" has reached its technical limits and won't lead much further. A bit far fetching, I think, Fedora needs bootimages supporting networked installs directly from Everything/ and some means to cut isos to for local reuse after installation. > Also assuming we can have client > side tools which could be told to "update only package updates flagged > as security related" on a daily basis from the network, people could > grab a snapshot of the updates tree when they want to for anything > non-critical. No, it don't think this is useful. To low-bandwith users it's not the number of packages, which are causing problems, it's the mass (Which happen to originate from a handful of packages which normally are marked security update) and from unreliability of the technology underneath (such as mirrors out of sync, broken metadata, yum issues). Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
