On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 22:14 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 06:22:16PM -0700, Bob Arendt wrote: > > I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained. If the > > goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to > > guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel, > > glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and > > complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old > > baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 > > months. How many legacy Fedora's would be retained? At some point > > it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy > > Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months. > > Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases > guarantee? Forget backporting. Just upgrade the package. Take it > from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary. Once you start upgrading packages all over the place to a much newer version than was in the original release, you might as well just upgrade. Seriously, I don't know why people are so scared of just _upgrading_, if new packages are acceptable. I upgrade remote, headless machines with yum, and reboot them into the new distribution. Quite frequently. And I laugh at the people who say it doesn't work. It's a fairly fundamental part of my server management technique -- yes, I run Fedora on my servers. Perhaps a better approach to this whole thing would be to educate people a little better that upgrades _do_ work, and they're generally fairly seamless. And to fix the occasional cases where they're not. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
