FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-05-2010, 11:01 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
<rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>>>
>>
>> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
>> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
>> latest always you could use kde-redhat repo
>
> I have been looking at the kde-redhat repo and I couldn't find any KDE
> SC 4.3+ updates. Am I missing something?

In kde-redhat you can find the next version of KDE SC, means soon
4.4.1 and some new versions of, for example, amarok. But no 4.3.x
packages.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 11:04 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
<thomasj@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
> <rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>>>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>>>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>>>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
>>> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
>>> latest always you could use kde-redhat repo
>>
>> I have been looking at the kde-redhat repo and I couldn't find any KDE
>> SC 4.3+ updates. Am I missing something?
>
> In kde-redhat you can find the next version of KDE SC, means soon
> 4.4.1 and some new versions of, for example, amarok. But no 4.3.x
> packages.

Well, yeah, right now it's almost empty since 4.4.0 is already out to
testing/stable. I forgot to mention that.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:09 PM
Rajeesh K Nambiar
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Janssen
<thomasj@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
> <thomasj@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
>> <rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>>>>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>>>>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>>>>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
>>>> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
>>>> latest always you could use kde-redhat repo
>>>
>>> I have been looking at the kde-redhat repo and I couldn't find any KDE
>>> SC 4.3+ updates. Am I missing something?
>>
>> In kde-redhat you can find the next version of KDE SC, means soon
>> 4.4.1 and some new versions of, for example, amarok. But no 4.3.x
>> packages.
>
> Well, yeah, right now it's almost empty since 4.4.0 is already out to
> testing/stable. I forgot to mention that.
I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/

>
> --
> LG Thomas
>
> Dubium sapientiae initium

--
Cheers,
Rajeesh
http://rajeeshknambiar.wordpress.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 12:57 PM
Andrew Haley
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:

> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
> for out there in the wild. To be a leading edge distribution. And dont
> come up again with rawhide. That's just ridiculous, because then i can
> run EVERY distro out there and use their rawhide/factory/cooker or
> whatever name they have. Leading edge doesn't stand only for "new
> technics adopted first".
>
> Another thing, since you throw that links about
> package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
> what software is my software built against and dont push broken
> software without testing to stable because of that "mistake"
>
> Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
> for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
> what you terribly fight against. And people love it exactly for that.
> But sure, there's always the possibility to bend over and try as hard
> as you can to make something without an own identity.....

I think you're making a mistake. Surely there's a fundamental
distinction between a distro that has the latest packages when
released and a distro that has the latest packages all the time via
updates. Even if Fedora didn't push new upstream versions via
updates, it'd still be a very hot leading edge distro.

Andrew.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:07 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/

4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it?

4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of
updates-testing.

Prereleases of 4.5 haven't been released by upstream yet. When we start
working on 4.5, we will import it to Rawhide first, and kde-redhat unstable
will get builds of the same stuff.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 01:53 PM
Rajeesh K Nambiar
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
>> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
>> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
>
> 4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it?
>
> 4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
> addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
> for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of
> updates-testing.
>
> Prereleases of 4.5 haven't been released by upstream yet. When we start
> working on 4.5, we will import it to Rawhide first, and kde-redhat unstable
> will get builds of the same stuff.

Thanks for the clarification, Kevin.

>
> * * * *Kevin Kofler
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



--
Cheers,
Rajeesh
http://rajeeshknambiar.wordpress.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 02:25 PM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
>> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
>> for out there in the wild. To be a leading edge distribution. And dont
>> come up again with rawhide. That's just ridiculous, because then i can
>> run EVERY distro out there and use their rawhide/factory/cooker or
>> whatever name they have. Leading edge doesn't stand only for "new
>> technics adopted first".
>>
>> Another thing, since you throw that links about
>> package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
>> what software is my software built against and dont push broken
>> software without testing to stable because of that "mistake"
>>
>> Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
>> for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
>> what you terribly fight against. And people love it exactly for that.
>> But sure, there's always the possibility to bend over and try as hard
>> as you can to make something without an own identity.....
>
> I think you're making a mistake. *Surely there's a fundamental
> distinction between a distro that has the latest packages when
> released and a distro that has the latest packages all the time via
> updates. *Even if Fedora didn't push new upstream versions via
> updates, it'd still be a very hot leading edge distro.

Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be
nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle. Sure
there would be some new stuff, as we had PA as first (just an
example). Though, exact that stuff annoyed a lot of users the most.
And who cares for real? It's not like Sound wasn't working or there
was nothing like Jack.
Look at openSUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu. They do the same good job as we
do. BUT they dont push the latest packages via updates. And that's the
difference for a lot of us. That's exactly the reason why a lot of us
changed to Fedora.
I would still stay with openSUSE if they did the same.

So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora over
one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is the same. And we will
not get users like me if we dont offer that. Sure, there might be
people who dont give a darn about people like me.

As said, if you ask who's the better Ubuntu, it will always be Ubuntu.

If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer
something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 02:38 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

I wrote:
> 4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
> addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
> for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of
> updates-testing.

Uh, I butchered that sentence. I mean:
4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
for those who don't want to enable the whole updates-testing, so they can
easily test it without pulling in all of updates-testing.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> > every upstream release into the updates repository
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
>
> 1. That policy is not mandatory, just indicative:
> "These are not intended to be prescriptive rules. Package maintainers are
> expected to to exercise their own common sense and good judgement."
> 2. That policy doesn't say that no new versions or even no feature upates
> should be pushed. Quite the opposite

> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.

That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
Rahul's point is that we don't, and the only policy we do have - even
though, as he specifically notes, it's a weak one (he says 'specifically
recommends', not 'requires') - is rather the opposite. If you'd left in
the context from the post Rahul was replying to, this would have been
clear.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-05-2010, 03:07 PM
Thomas Moschny
 
Default how to make things better(tm)

2010/3/5 Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
>> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
>> > every upstream release into the updates repository
>> >
>> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
>>
>> 1. That policy is not mandatory, just indicative:
>> "These are not intended to be prescriptive rules. Package maintainers are
>> expected to to exercise their own common sense and good judgement."
>> 2. That policy doesn't say that no new versions or even no feature upates
>> should be pushed. Quite the opposite
>
>> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
>
> That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
> post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
> Rahul's point is that we don't, and the only policy we do have - even
> though, as he specifically notes, it's a weak one (he says 'specifically
> recommends', not 'requires') - is rather the opposite. If you'd left in
> the context from the post Rahul was replying to, this would have been
> clear.

Although when it was approved by fesco, it was discussed under the
term "Update description guidelines", and from the short discussion
archived on http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-02-05.html
it is not at all clear that the main intention was to discourage
updates to stable releases. Instead the main focus was on the update
descriptions.

- Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org