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 10-11-2008, 05:53 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 17:08 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 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
Absolutely not.

> 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?
I am complaining about a _few_ people having run down a once fascinating
project, with the very same people closing their eyes in front this, of
what I consider to be an inconvenient truth.

Wrt. EPEL, I have always had the same opinion on it, since the very
beginning.

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

> Then DO SOMETHING.
Sigh, I repeatedly have been trying to do something, but always the same
"Fedora chiefs" had machine-gunned almost each and every proposal.

You know, you have been one of these - Do I really have to be more
direct?

Ralf


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 06:46 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:


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.


No, it's not an either/or scenario. Users may way to develop something
new and be willing to put up with unstable fedora to get current tools
for that, but there is no clear transition plan to put what they have
built into production. In the old RH X.0 -> X.1 -> X.2 days the
transition from a new release to a stable OS usable in production
happened through updates - now it doesn't happen at all. Support is
simply dropped for the platform you started on and there is no reason to
expect anywhere near the same library versions and environment as you
migrate to a stable platform.



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.


What's the 'right' tool to develop for the next version of Centos?

--
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 10-11-2008, 08:09 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> No, it's not an either/or scenario.

You're confusing what you want with what is. What is *is* an either/or
scenario as there is no definite path from starting with Fedora to
getting to a long term OS. What could be is a long term release for
certain releases if you and other like minded people do the work to
offer security updates and major bugfixes beyond the current EOL.

> Users may way to develop something
> new and be willing to put up with unstable fedora to get current tools
> for that, but there is no clear transition plan to put what they have
> built into production. In the old RH X.0 -> X.1 -> X.2 days the
> transition from a new release to a stable OS usable in production
> happened through updates - now it doesn't happen at all. Support is
> simply dropped for the platform you started on and there is no reason to
> expect anywhere near the same library versions and environment as you
> migrate to a stable platform.
>
>> 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.
>
> What's the 'right' tool to develop for the next version of Centos?
>
Why, the initial release of the Fedora version that the next version of
CentOS is going to be based on, of course! :-)

And if you want to ask which version of Fedora that is, I'd like to ask
you how you knew there was going to be a RHL 6.2 but not a RHL 6.3; a
RHL 7.3, but not a RHL 8.1....

-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 08:41 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:



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.
No, it's not an either/or scenario.


You're confusing what you want with what is.


No, I was responding to your misconception of what users want as stated
above. What you said is not what I want.



What is *is* an either/or
scenario as there is no definite path from starting with Fedora to
getting to a long term OS.


Agreed, hence this thread of complaints.


What could be is a long term release for
certain releases if you and other like minded people do the work to
offer security updates and major bugfixes beyond the current EOL.


That doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you want to commit to long
term support of some otherwise orphaned variant when all that is needed
is a smooth, planned transition to a version designed for stability with
existing long term support?



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.

What's the 'right' tool to develop for the next version of Centos?


Why, the initial release of the Fedora version that the next version of
CentOS is going to be based on, of course! :-)


Maybe - if the users that reported the bugs that permitted the
improvements in stability through the fedora cycles weren't abandoned
and left on their own to figure out the departure point and what the
differences will be.



And if you want to ask which version of Fedora that is, I'd like to ask
you how you knew there was going to be a RHL 6.2 but not a RHL 6.3; a
RHL 7.3, but not a RHL 8.1....


The version numbers aren't particularly relevant there (and by 8.x the
process was so badly broken that no one would have wanted an 8.1). The
point is that from the early versions through 7.3 a user could start
from the original release, report bugs while doing his own local
development and testing, and end up with both the system and local work
stabilizing and being usable in production together. With fedora you
get the bugs and can report them, but you never end up with a usable
platform in the end.


--
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 10-11-2008, 08:55 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Arthur Pemberton wrote:



Right. But why can't Fedora do better? I feel Fedora could do better.


Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc. 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.


The way to get more devs is to make developing on Fedora useful.
Currently it's a dead end and not a path towards something running in
production.



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?


Likewise, why develop for/on it? Just so you can hope that a
similar-enough-to-maybe-work enterprise platform will eventually appear?


--
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 10-11-2008, 09:01 AM
Benny Amorsen
 
Default

Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> writes:

> b) If anybody is running production servers on Fedora, then worse
> for him -- Fedora is a developers' distro and that's the
> reason why it has limited support.

If your set up is such that you can survive an upgrade every 9 months,
Fedora is fine for servers.

With Fedora, you get benefits of the bleeding edge. Linux software in
general, even server software, is improving rapidly, and having your
software stack 12 months (or more) ahead of the competition is
valuable.

For servers, you can often do a full Fedora upgrade with yum and not
even have to reboot at the same time. That's officially unsupported,
but you can't get a support contract from Fedora anyway.


/Benny

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 09:06 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Matej Cepl wrote:

On 2008-10-10, 15:49 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
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.


How is it different from just using CentOS?


There's no lead time for your own local development and testing. You
would never expect one of the old RH X.0 releases to be production-ready
but the new releases would have new kernels, libraries, and utilities so
you could incorporate their features in your own work, which was likely
to proceed at approximately the same rate as the distro evolved toward
stability. With Centos you don't get anything to work with and test
ahead of time, and if you'd tested on an earlier Fedora there may or may
not be any relationship. A side effect was that the community of RH
users that reported/fixed bugs in the X.0 got something for their effort
in being able to continue using the updated release instead of being
abandoned as a wildly new X.0 came out.


--
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 10-11-2008, 09:28 AM
"Christopher Brown"
 
Default

2008/10/11 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 17:08 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> 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
> Absolutely not.
>
>> 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?
> I am complaining about a _few_ people having run down a once fascinating
> project, with the very same people closing their eyes in front this, of
> what I consider to be an inconvenient truth.
>
> Wrt. EPEL, I have always had the same opinion on it, since the very
> beginning.
>
>> >> Sure. With more devs, servers, time, etc.
>> > ... less bureaucracy, less committees/less chiefs/more Indians,
>> > different people, different strategies.
>
>> Then DO SOMETHING.
> Sigh, I repeatedly have been trying to do something, but always the same
> "Fedora chiefs" had machine-gunned almost each and every proposal.
>
> You know, you have been one of these - Do I really have to be more
> direct?

No, you just have to be less of an ass. As a casual observer, all you
seem to do is throw rocks. Your only sanctuary lies in the totally
open nature of the project and that it's pretty much impossible to
boot you off it. In fact, your occasional tantrums bears all the
hallmarks of ESR before he happily departed these shores - any chance
you'll be doing the same soon and leave people to get on with the task
in hand?

If not then please remember that good manners cost nothing.

Regards

--
Christopher Brown

http://www.chruz.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 02:58 PM
Till Maas
 
Default

On Fri October 10 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> support from the boards. Some months ago I proposed something for a
> fedora lts that was brought down, maybe for good reasons, but the tone
> of the discussions really showed very few support, and I'd even say some
> antagonism.

Iirc you would get support in terms of infrastructure in case you have a clear
proposal and enough people doing the work. Also they should show, that they
are really interested in doing this for long enough, that it does not look
like a failed project. E.g. starting now a Fedora LTS project and ending it
next year, because there are not enough maintainers/people interested in
doing the work, does not look good for Fedora.

If you think you have enough people, then maybe create a list of them and show
how they will maintain the packages for the LTS. E.g. they could be already
(co)maintainers of the current Fedora packages and do work within Fedora
Infrastructure, Security Response Team and Release Engineering, Translations
and all the other teams that are needed to compose a distribution. But you
cannot expect much support from people who do not have a big enough interest
in this project and spend time on it, that they could spend on improving the
parts of Fedora, they are interested in.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-11-2008, 04:55 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default

On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 04:06 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> There's no lead time for your own local development and testing. You
> would never expect one of the old RH X.0 releases to be production-ready
> but the new releases would have new kernels, libraries, and utilities so
> you could incorporate their features in your own work, which was likely
> to proceed at approximately the same rate as the distro evolved toward
> stability. With Centos you don't get anything to work with and test
> ahead of time, and if you'd tested on an earlier Fedora there may or may
> not be any relationship. A side effect was that the community of RH
> users that reported/fixed bugs in the X.0 got something for their effort
> in being able to continue using the updated release instead of being
> abandoned as a wildly new X.0 came out.

CentOS should be putting out betas that match the RHEL betas so that you
can get access to it before the release. Use Fedora as the technology
driver, use Betas as the bugfix cleanup for platform issues, and
eventually you get the "Enterprise" release.

--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:17 PM.

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