Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > > >> Fedora could make it's next release somewhere around the point where > >> the paths start to diverge so people who wanted the fast-track > >> unstable flavor could re-install as they apparently love to do, and > >> the rest of us could just drift into stability. > > Why would any Fedoran want to "drift into stability"? That is a > > contradiction in terms... If it was /so/ badly wanted as you claim, Fedora > > Legacy would be alive and well, don't you think? > No, Fedora, legacy or not, is not good at maintaining stability. I'm > not surprised it didn't work and wouldn't expect it to work if > revived. My impression too, but experimental data trumps that. > What people actually do is run RHEL or Centos for their > actual work. Depends on what "actual work" means... > Which leaves the question of how to get from one to the > other as you develop something new, then want to run it. Move the SRPM over, rebuild on the target? Have done so several times, with minimal fuss. Also moved SRPMs to Aurora (on SPARC64, Fedora-based), and even ported SRPMs for stuff I couldn't find on Fedora from a variety of other distributions. I also maintained locally old packages for stuff where the newer one didn't work. I'd expect anybody who used Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora for any length of time have done so too... -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
