EOL, rolling releases, and Extras (Was Re: Fedora Extras vs. CLOSED RAWHIDE)

Toshio toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Fri Aug 6 02:02:09 UTC 2004


On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 19:18, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:52:17 -0400, Toshio wrote:
> 
> > I agree that Core shouldn't be a rolling release, but I think Extras is
> > currently very much a Rolling Release. 
> 
> Partially. Some packages are updated more frequently than others,
> sometimes due to their experimental status and inclusion in the
> testing/unstable trees. Some are updated when the packager thinks a new
> upstream release contains interesting feature additions or important bug
> fixes. Some packagers monitor upstream development closely and skip some
> releases which would cause regression or upgrade problems. But the current
> extra packages are provided in online repositories, so it doesn't really
> matter if package foo is upgraded from 1.0.0 to 1.0.2 two months after the
> release of FC2 or if a minor enhancement is added as 1.0.0-2 shortly after
> it was implemented. The users of these online repositories benefit from
> such updates.
> 
True.  I would expect that in an ISO image world, the people putting
together collections would be responsible for communicating with
packagers that they want to include something in a collection and what
the requirements of that would be.

The main problem I anticipate is when a collection needs to do a freeze
prior to release and the package maintainer wants to continue to update
the package.  But would that really be a problem if the freeze were only
three weeks (like Core)?

> In particular, all this is due to the current development model and
> infrastructure. At fedora.us there's no "development" repository. There's
> no repository which follows Rawhide daily and triggers automated
> mass-rebuilds of extra packages. Updates make it into the
> stable/testing/unstable tree directly. With the release of FC2, one could
> stop doing upgrades and only push updates into testing/unstable, which
> would cause major confusion due to the chosen repository names.
> 
Uhm... that last part confuses me :-)

> Btw, there's no requirement that maintenance of FE package for FC1 is done
> by the same person than development of the package for next release of FC


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list