Josh Boyer wrote:
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.
And if the machine is remote and headless as above? Or just generally
inconvenient to access or have down while you figure out what broke?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
