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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:08 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:
> What we need for the same effect now is for the versions of fedora that
> provide the initial RHEL cuts to offer a seamless update to the subsequent
> matching CentOS, repointing to its update repositories for continued support.

I'm afraid that's not possible, because Fedora (even the previous version of
it!) keeps getting version updates after RHEL gets branched and RHEL doesn't
get most of them, so even the upgrade path from Fedora n-1 to a RHEL based on
Fedora n can't be guaranteed, not even at the very moment RHEL gets released,
and thus not at any point in time.

The development branch for RHEL would have to be opened up (and EPEL maintained
against it, too) for a proposal like yours to work, and I don't think Red Hat
is prepared to do that; additionally, you'd also have to hop off Fedora to
there exactly at the right point in time, because Fedora would continue getting
updates, not all of which will end up in RHEL.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:09 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I mostly agree, however it seems to me that a true Fedora LTS is
> missing, that would allow those who want things that are new, including
> for testing but cannot afford changing everything each year (servers for
> example or user desktops). It seems to me that fedora ends up being used
> almost exclusively as single user desktop, so that testing of other
> functionalities is likely to be less widespread. Fortunately, those
> functionnalities certainly need less integration and so less testing in
> fedora before they go to RHEL/CENTOS + EPEL, but still it would
> certainly have some relevance, in my opinion.

Given the amount of churn we allow maintainers to introduce into our
"stable" releases, I highly doubt Fedora would be suitable for any
situation where a "LTS" was desired. There is just too much major
version upgrading, behavioral changes, massive amounts of updates,
rapidly invalid documentation, and high chance of regression in the
"stable" updates. We should address *that* problem before ever thinking
about extending the life.

--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://jkeating.livejournal.com)
Fedora Project (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
identi.ca (http://identi.ca/jkeating)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:09 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Patrice Dumas [10/10/2008 17:39] :
>
> Now it may very well be possible that there is not
> enough interested users to make that distro, but there is also a lack of
> support from the boards.

You don't actually need support from the boards to do something.

If you believe something is worth doing, start it outside the Fedora
project and see if it catches on. If it does, you can consider making
a pitch to the board to bring it under the Fedora umbrella.

ISn't this how the KDE SIG got started ?

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:16 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:13:14AM -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like you want Centos + Extras then. Or maybe Extras isn't up to
>> date enough, and some people may need to create a new 'Current' repo
>> for Centos.
>
> If you are referring to EPEL with Extras, EPEL should not move faster
> than RHEL, and, as far as I can tell, a 'Current' repo for Centos
> doesn't exist.


Well I suspected from my usage that EPEL with Extras does not move
faster. Hence why I suggested that those interested may want to create
a 'Current' repo. To pull in newer packages that they feel are stable.
I am aware that such doesn't exist, and 'Current' is just a
placeholder for the idea. I myself see little value in it, but some
seem to.

Are there any distros which are very current, stable _and_ source of a
lot of development in the Linux/FOSS community? Seems to me, that once
can any given distro can only have two out of three of those
properties.

IMHO: If dropping any idea of stability meant a 50% (just an arbitrary
positive number) increase in dev productivity, I'm all for it.

--
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:21 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:16 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> Are there any distros which are very current, stable _and_ source of a
> lot of development in the Linux/FOSS community? Seems to me, that once
> can any given distro can only have two out of three of those
> properties.

It's like the old good, fast, cheap adage. Pick two of those because
that's all you'll ever get.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:23 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Kevin Kofler wrote:

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:

What we need for the same effect now is for the versions of fedora that
provide the initial RHEL cuts to offer a seamless update to the subsequent
matching CentOS, repointing to its update repositories for continued support.


I'm afraid that's not possible, because Fedora (even the previous version of
it!) keeps getting version updates after RHEL gets branched and RHEL doesn't
get most of them, so even the upgrade path from Fedora n-1 to a RHEL based on
Fedora n can't be guaranteed, not even at the very moment RHEL gets released,
and thus not at any point in time.


The development branch for RHEL would have to be opened up (and EPEL maintained
against it, too) for a proposal like yours to work, and I don't think Red Hat
is prepared to do that; additionally, you'd also have to hop off Fedora to
there exactly at the right point in time, because Fedora would continue getting
updates, not all of which will end up in RHEL.


I know it doesn't work that way now - hence the complaints.

Fedora could make it's next release somewhere around the point where the
paths start to diverge so people who wanted the fast-track unstable
flavor could re-install as they apparently love to do, and the rest of
us could just drift into stability.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:28 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:09:23PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [10/10/2008 17:39] :
> >
> > Now it may very well be possible that there is not
> > enough interested users to make that distro, but there is also a lack of
> > support from the boards.
>
> You don't actually need support from the boards to do something.

When it requires cooperation with the infrastructure, it does. It is
also possible to start something external like rpmfusion, but the amount
of work is very big. My proposal only made sense if the economies of
scale realized by working inside the fedora project were realized.

Still, if somebody provides the infrastructure, sure I'll try to help
with a project similar than the one I proposed, but I cannot myself do
anything for the infrastructure part.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:29 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Arthur Pemberton wrote:



Well I suspected from my usage that EPEL with Extras does not move
faster. Hence why I suggested that those interested may want to create
a 'Current' repo. To pull in newer packages that they feel are stable.
I am aware that such doesn't exist, and 'Current' is just a
placeholder for the idea. I myself see little value in it, but some
seem to.


Now that RHEL apparently realizes that they don't have to stick to a
years-behind firefox and openoffice, there's a little less value in 3rd
party maintainers for those updates...


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 04:43 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> On 2008-10-10, 14:36 GMT, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
>> > What should do some previously RedHat-oriented enthusiast, when
>> > all the area for application of his enthusiasm is some
>> > "production environment"? Use RHEL/CentOS anywhere and Fedora
>> > on his laptop only? But RHEL/CentOS is far from the "bleeding
>> > edge", hence his enthusiasm just disappear...
>>
>> Think about that and repeat until you get it -- "distro is either
>> bleeding-edge or stable; tercium non datur".
>
> It is a bit more complicated. A distro may begin its life bleeding edge
> and become stable as time goes by, if it is still maintained. And a
> stable distro may have parts that are bleeding-edge. This is not
> necessarily easy to implement, but these scenarios certainly have
> merits.
>

It can only become stable if you have people focus on things and not
look at new stuff. And usually it requires resources that are
expensive.



--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 05:54 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Les Mikesell [10/10/2008 19:45] :
>
> What we need for the same effect now is
> for the versions of fedora that provide the initial RHEL cuts to offer a
> seamless update to the subsequent matching CentOS, repointing to its
> update repositories for continued support.

I'ld expect migration guides and packages from Fedora to $DISTRIBUTION
to be written by the $DISTRIBUTION community, not Fedora's.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:21 PM.

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