On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 20:24 -0800, Don Russell wrote:
> Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
> > So firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20 shouldn't have been included with FC3?
> > What about thunderbird-0.8.0-9?
>
> I guess it depends on what we mean by "pre-release"... Is anything 0.x
> "pre-release"? From what I've read here OOo-2.x pre-release isn't quite
> ready for the masses. Personally, I'd rather have a less feature-rich
> but stable product, than a feature-rich product that crashes, hangs or
> whatever else inconveniences me.
That PR in the firefox file name means pre-release.
While OOo-2.x hasn't achieved pre-release yet, I've been very happy
using it. Much better than OOo-1.x
<snip>
> > Why can't OOo-2.x pre-release be included (given significant testing)
> > and then updated to 2.0 final after FC4 is released. It's not like this
> > hasn't been done before.
>
> I'd have to ask what "significant testing" means.... :-)
Significant testing means putting OOo-2.x into rawhide so people can
(and will) bang on it with whatever they use to bang things. ;-]
Without it's inclusion it rawhide it's going to be really hard to know
whether it's up to snuff, but given that it's due for final release
around the same time as FC4 it should be pretty good.
People using FC3 already know what OOo-1.1.x is like, so this would be a
good way to get them to compare the two.
> Given the short release cycle of FC, I don't see the problem of
> deferring a program package to the next release, or making it available
> via up2date. If people really need to run code that close to the
> bleeding edge, they're free to do so via rawhide.
OOo-2.x isn't that close to the bleeding edge. Remember, like Firefox
was to be ready around the same time as FC3, OOo is slated for final
release around the same time as FC4. That's hardly bleeding edge.
Thunderbird wasn't even close to release when FC3 was released.
> Is it really a matter of choosing between FC4 and FC5? If omitted from
> FC4, why can't it made available via up2date at some time prior to FC5?
As I understand it, Redhat is loath to update software that isn't binary
compatible during a release. So usually anything with a different major
number is held back until the next release. The difference between
OOo-1.1.x and OOo-2.x are big enough that I wouldn't think RH would want
to upgrade to 2.x mid release.
Consider that there was some concern about going from gimp-2.0.x to
gimp-2.2.x even though they were supposed to be binary compatible, and
while it did happen, it doesn't happen often.
> (up2date is one of pet peeves but it is A LOT better than it used to be)
I wouldn't know. I used to struggle with it until Alan Cox said it was
a piece of crap (my paraphrasing) and that it should be dumped from FC.
Given how nice yum is getting I couldn't agree more. ;-]
Rodd
--
>From the pain come the dream
>From the dream come the vision
>From the vision come the people
>From the people come the power
>From this power come the change
- Peter Gabriel