On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 21:21 -0700, Richi Plana wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:16 -0500, David Mansfield wrote: > > Say the LTS cycle is one release every two years (every fourth Fedora > > release), and that the 'long term' for support only lasts for two years > > (which is pretty short to use the term long for, I realize), then there > > would only be one LTS release, and also the most current release to > > worry about at any given time. > > I was about to say that that is exactly what RHEL-to-CentOS is for, but > thinking about it, I think I know what your problem is with CentOS. > > One thing not factored with CentOS is how old it is compared to the > version of Fedora that it's supposed to be based upon. If I understand > you correctly, your concept of LTS is based on the Final stable release > of Fedora and will be supported for two years as opposed to some version > of CentOS which upon release is probably years behind the final release > of rawhide it was based on and therefore obsolete with hardware (which > also has a fast release cycle). (Could someone do the math?) > > Did I understand your problem correctly? That's certainly a big part of it. A big part. You're right, when Fedora comes out, it's at least current for the hardware of the day, but when CentOS does come out with a major release, it's not even going to work right on that same hardware, let alone new hardware that comes out later. Also, there are quirks that appear in the EL spins that weren't there in the Fedora releases. One example is some weird synaptic touchpad problem I had that was only on the EL kernels. Is that ever going to get fixed? No, it's not even a bug in the synaptic code, its somewhere else. That's just an example though. David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
