Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > * can we stick to the "rolling release" scheme when anaconda will > start supporting external repos during install (the rolling release > scheme might break installs (not sure, but I think that is possible))? > And/or do we need Releases of Fedora Extras? E.g. ISOs of FE6 and a > stable repo on the servers and all new version go to a "updates" > directory (similar to core)? What I'd love to aim at is a structure similar to what FreeBSD has. A core system with release engineering, and the "ports collection", Extras here, which has a rolling scheme, but is rebuilt on each Core release. FreeBSD's base system is much more lightweight than the current Fedora Core (no X, no web servers, no databases, etc...), so we are very far from the same distinction, and we may not even want to push it this far, but separating the base system from the rest of the applications has *lots* of advantages from the administrator's and the user's point of view. No need to upgrade your OS to get the latest version of your favorite app, or of the services you're running on the box. So I would vote for a "rolling release" scheme in Extras, with a rebuild on each Core release to make sure Anaconda has something to feed on. This particular release could be kept on the mirrors (as we already keep the two last builds), just to be on the safe side with dependencies. Aurélien -- http://aurelien.bompard.org ~~~~ Jabber : abompard@xxxxxxxxx The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
