I agree that using up2date works fine, except: a) are there issues that won't be fixed by up2date ? b) when the issue involves the install process, like disk_druid did in FC2. c) people have to know to run up2date and/or have to be able to. Ie they need a network and a working network. I've got some workstations that are NOT on any network, on purpose. I know enough to get them updated via a temp network connection. What about people that don't have an internet connector or have a dial up ? d) kernel updates need to come through up2date. I know they do now/for FC, but at one time they didn't. If the problem can be fixed with up2date, it shouldn't take much to change the packages on the ISOs and create a fc3.1 directory. On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 10:29 -0800, Per Bjornsson wrote: > On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:14 -0700, Kim Lux wrote: > > It got me a week of developing with kdevelop ! What was I supposed to > > do ? Sit and do nothing ? I've got a project deadline going here. > > Of course you should use the tools you need to do your job. What I > actually meant to ask was why it would be better to spend time on > rolling a fixed-up release (FC3.1) instead of just letting people > install FC3 and then update using Yum/up2date. For something as fast- > moving as Fedora the release process itself is a significant time sink. > > /Per > > -- > Per Bjornsson <perbj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University > -- Kim Lux (Mr.) Diesel Research Inc