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, 10:03 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:44:38PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [10/10/2008 19:45] :
> >
> > When it requires cooperation with the infrastructure, it does.
>
> How so ?
>
> Reading through the archives, your project was to extend support
> for Fedora releases past EOL on a volunteer basis. That doesn't

But within the fedora infrastructure, and with the fedora rules (unlike
fedora legacy that had different infrastructure and rules).

If I had my own infrastructure, I would still be maintaining some
packages for oldest releases.

As a side note, I think that in the end my project would certainly have
failed because I don't think that somebody would have stepped up to take
the big ones, like glibc, kernel, gcc but this would have been an
interesting test.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 10:16 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default

Arthur Pemberton wrote:


I saw no mention of Centos, though someone in the thread mentioned
that it had been attempted. Your point about upgrade makes sense,
though I find it pretty weak. Is doing an inplace upgrade on a
production server common? I don't think so, but I am quite possibly
wrong.


In my previous organization working as a administrator, I was asked by a
server owner to live upgrade his Red Hat Linux 9 system to Fedora Core 2
even though there was several hundreds of active domains in it. They had
backups but time was absolutely of essence that he was willing to risk
it. The upgrade via yum turned out to be fine in the end. I suspect
situations like these are not very uncommon and more people will be able
to use it, if we spend some resources tackling the problem. Thankfully,
it is happening already.


Now that PackageKit has support for distro upgrades (ie) desktop
notification for new releases, the situation is much better for many
users. Preupgrade which PackageKit will be using to do the job, is also
enhanced by making use of the blacklist and whiteout yum plugins that
have been split up from Anaconda.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 10:23 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:53 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> >> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
> [snip]
> >> The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora.
> > I can not disagree more - To me, it's yet another evidence of Fedora
> > being on the loose.
>
> You're going to have to expound on that. I do not see Centos in any
> way as in competition with Fedora.
EPEL drains away resources from Fedora.

If people were investing the time they (as I feel waste) on supporting
EPEL into Fedora, Fedora would be better.

> Centos is something everyone should
> be proud of.
Well, to me CentOS is as important as any other arbitrary Linux distro.
I am glad they are around, but not more and not less.

> >> CentOS's
> >> goals are better oriented to the needs of someone that wants to deploy a
> >> system and run it for years. Fedora is good for people who want to get
> >> the latest technologies from upstream as soon as they're stable enough
> >> to integrate into a running system.
> > Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better.
>
> Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc.
... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians,
different people, different strategies.

> But baring a sudden increase
> in those, I would much prefer to see Fedora focus on dev and testing,
> let other distros pretty things up.
ACK. Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting away from this group towards
single-user desktops (e.g. OLPC).

> >> > This situation seems to be reflected in the Fedora project itself.
> >> > Guess, how many Fedora infrastructure servers are run under the latest
> >> > "stable" Fedora release?
> >>
> >> As few as possible.
> > IMO, a fundamental management/infrastructure mistake - If these people
> > were using Fedora, they would be facing the issues Fedora users are
> > facing everyday and likely would being to understand why people complain
> > about Fedora.
>
> Why would they, after often suggesting that Fedora _not_ be used on
> production servers, use Fedora on their production servers?
Depends on how they mean it:
- if they are referring to "long term maintained/everlasting support"
servers, they are right.
- if they mean it as "Fedora is technically too unstable", then this
people should start working on improving the situation or (better) quit
Fedora.

> >> The reason is not about stability. It is about
> >> updates. Once Fedora stops getting updates we'd have to upgrade to the
> >> next Fedora release with all of the churn that causes for vastly
> >> unrelated pieces of the OS.
> > Gotcha! If not even the Fedora project can handle the issues, why do you
> > expect users to be able to solve them? I think technically the issues
> > can be overcome. It's a matter of will.
>
> Well, it's not really an issue. It's only an issue if you run Fedora
> on your production servers.
They would be less issues, if Fedora was using Fedora for its servers.

More bluntly: The fact Fedora is not using Fedora for its servers is a
shame for Fedora.

Ralf




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 11:08 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 16:53 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
>> >> > Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >> The fact that they switched to CentOS is *good* for Fedora.
>> > I can not disagree more - To me, it's yet another evidence of Fedora
>> > being on the loose.
>>
>> You're going to have to expound on that. I do not see Centos in any
>> way as in competition with Fedora.
> EPEL drains away resources from Fedora.
>
> If people were investing the time they (as I feel waste) on supporting
> EPEL into Fedora, Fedora would be better.
>

Ok. Ralf.. if you hate Fedora and all its projects so much, why do you
fricking stay around. Every fricking thread its "Fedora has too much
bueracracy. Fedora has a broken build system. EPEL steals resources..
" What are you doing?



>> Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc.
> ... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians,
> different people, different strategies.
>

Then DO SOMETHING. Get your indians together and make your camp
somewhere and show us chiefs how it is supposed to be done.




--
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, 11:10 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default

Behdad Esfahbod <behdad <at> behdad.org> writes:
> The major problem Wikipedia faced seems to me more being that
> Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is not really upgradeable, whereas Debian/Ubuntu handled
> upgrades quite nicely. *That* seems to be a major weakness of us.

The same "apt-get dist-upgrade" which works on Debian/Ubuntu just works here
too (with apt-rpm - I've done several upgrades to the next Fedora release that
way), as does yum (which is better supported and nowadays also more reliable).
And don't forget that Anaconda also supports upgrades (for RHEL, "upgrade"
or "upgradeany" is your friend; you can even switch from RHEL/CentOS to Fedora
with upgradeany (the opposite will only work properly if your Fedora is
completely outdated though)).

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, 11:27 PM
Behdad Esfahbod
 
Default

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Behdad Esfahbod <behdad <at> behdad.org> writes:
>> The major problem Wikipedia faced seems to me more being that
>> Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is not really upgradeable, whereas Debian/Ubuntu handled
>> upgrades quite nicely. *That* seems to be a major weakness of us.
>
> The same "apt-get dist-upgrade" which works on Debian/Ubuntu just works here
> too (with apt-rpm - I've done several upgrades to the next Fedora release that
> way), as does yum (which is better supported and nowadays also more reliable).
> And don't forget that Anaconda also supports upgrades (for RHEL, "upgrade"
> or "upgradeany" is your friend; you can even switch from RHEL/CentOS to Fedora
> with upgradeany (the opposite will only work properly if your Fedora is
> completely outdated though)).

You certainly "can", but does it "work"?

behdad

> 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, 11:38 PM
Emmanuel Seyman
 
Default

* Patrice Dumas [11/10/2008 00:59] :
>
> But within the fedora infrastructure, and with the fedora rules (unlike
> fedora legacy that had different infrastructure and rules).

What's so important about the fedora infrastructure that it is required
to release updates past EOL ? The rules I can understand (even if I don't
agree) but those can be replicated elsewhere.

> As a side note, I think that in the end my project would certainly have
> failed because I don't think that somebody would have stepped up to take
> the big ones, like glibc, kernel, gcc but this would have been an
> interesting test.

But why didn't you try ?
Your proposal sounded like a good idea (although I think you're right
that not enough people are interested in it for it to be viable) and
I think it's a shame that you didn't go ahead and implement it.

Emmanuel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 11:47 PM
seth vidal
 
Default

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 19:27 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Behdad Esfahbod <behdad <at> behdad.org> writes:
> >> The major problem Wikipedia faced seems to me more being that
> >> Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is not really upgradeable, whereas Debian/Ubuntu handled
> >> upgrades quite nicely. *That* seems to be a major weakness of us.
> >
> > The same "apt-get dist-upgrade" which works on Debian/Ubuntu just works here
> > too (with apt-rpm - I've done several upgrades to the next Fedora release that
> > way), as does yum (which is better supported and nowadays also more reliable).
> > And don't forget that Anaconda also supports upgrades (for RHEL, "upgrade"
> > or "upgradeany" is your friend; you can even switch from RHEL/CentOS to Fedora
> > with upgradeany (the opposite will only work properly if your Fedora is
> > completely outdated though)).
>
> You certainly "can", but does it "work"?
>

It really depends on the package set you've got.


If you're talking about a server w/o an infinite set of pkgs installed,
sure, it's doable.

If you're talking about an ornate and baroque pkg selection on a server
which does a bazillion things, no, it won't be a clean process. notably,
it won't be clean on ANY distro.

-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-10-2008, 11:55 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:38:42AM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [11/10/2008 00:59] :
> >
> > But within the fedora infrastructure, and with the fedora rules (unlike
> > fedora legacy that had different infrastructure and rules).
>
> What's so important about the fedora infrastructure that it is required
> to release updates past EOL ? The rules I can understand (even if I don't
> agree) but those can be replicated elsewhere.
>
> But why didn't you try ?

It requires hardware and some admins to have a build system. I don't
have the time, nor the computers.

> Your proposal sounded like a good idea (although I think you're right
> that not enough people are interested in it for it to be viable) and
> I think it's a shame that you didn't go ahead and implement it.

I cannot do that on my own. I am a packager and I know next to nothing
about how to set up a buildsystem. It took quite a long time for
rpmfusion to do that I don't have that time (nor the hardware).

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 05:22 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 12:38 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>> The reason is not about stability. It is about
>> updates. Once Fedora stops getting updates we'd have to upgrade to the
>> next Fedora release with all of the churn that causes for vastly
>> unrelated pieces of the OS.
> Gotcha! If not even the Fedora project can handle the issues, why do you
> expect users to be able to solve them? I think technically the issues
> can be overcome. It's a matter of will.
>
No gotcha here. I don't expect users to handle the issues. Either the
users in question want the opportunity to run the latest software in an
integrated distro and so choose to run Fedora or they want to have a
stable platform on which to deploy their own work and therefore they use
CentOS/RHEL/Debian Stable.

There's a right tool for any job and a wrong tool. Using your crescent
wrench to hammer nails is possible but not very satisfying.

-Toshio

--
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 07:49 AM.

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