On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:12:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > David Woodhouse 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. > > What do you do when the upgrade kernel won't boot? This sometimes > happens even on updates within a version. Yum updates leave the kernel you are currently running on in-place. Boot back to that one and file a bug. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
