On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
You are absolutely right.... But may I suggest you missed
my point altogether....
Clement is not the issue...
The issue is to have in 2 year from now an FC6 in production,
everything is perfect ("if it is working, do not fix it"), but
you still want to keep up-to-date 2 or 3 critical application
(from your production stand-point).
YUM and it is repository system is now a standard.
By setting the clement repos definition , I tried to provide
a way to conveniently go beyond the normal FCX life
cycle. In fact I am trying to resolve a problem of my own
occuring when I want to keep some package Alive (I know some
customer site still running (happily) a RH-6.1 for almost 6 year
now).
This concept isn't lost on me. Earlier this year I decommissioned a
RedHat 6.2 machine that had been not only in place for about six years,
but hadn't been rebooted in three.
Alas, it was a foregone conclusion that to keep a machine in place that
long, we had to give up the luxury of receiving updates (from upstream, at
least). That was acceptable for what we needed, so that was okay. For a
while.
If, I as provider/designer, I am willing to provide application
X from RH-7.3 -> to XXXX, it is my decision. Having a convenient
yum backup repos implemented within the application seems
to me a solution (may be there is better way (still to
define?)).
According my understanding of the exchange on this topics,
providing a easy/standardized way to go beyond a normal
linux distribution life cycle is out of question.
As Mr. Keating touched upon, it does no good to end users if one package
continues to be maintained if hundreds others (many of them probably with
more potential for serious security vulnerabilities) are not.
Fine to me, but then FC-X is a nice piece of artwork,
but not a distribution to be used for production grad.
(May be RedHat like it that way).
It's fine as long as you don't have qualms with upgrading to the next
release. If that's an issue, then RHEL or CentOS (with their longer
support cycles) might be better suited to your needs.
say on that). Just keep it out of /etc/yum.repos.d/. I don't care how
confusing it might be to enable it -- how confused do you think we were
when we discovered (twice!) that you did such an outlandish thing?
First time I was not advised, if it was that terrible, you
should have let me know, too bad for you.
I wasn't the one who discovered or remedied it either time, but yes, I
agree, you should have been specifically contacted. I'm not attaching any
particular blame to either instance. The first, your intentions were
good; the second, you weren't aware that you were undoing something.
Alas, FESCo was not fond of the discovery the first time, and there seems
to be fairly significant opposition to your idea. I'm fine with people
extending the life cycle for clement updates, but only if that's
specifically what they intend to do. If they skate past EOL and still see
updates (from clement), they might assume everything is hunky-dory when
that's anything but the case.
Jima
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
