Fedora spin from RpmFusion

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:56:59 +0000
> ""Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"" <johannbg at hi.is> wrote:
> 
>> I still think that Fedora-unity re-spins which are the official img
>> with updates should be on the front
>> with the official ones ( and I feel even more strongly about this
>> issue should replace the official ones ).

In another thread on another mailing list I'm reading that Release
Engineering will need to be able to build the spins that are to be
blessed by the Fedora Project Board, and they have chosen to only do so
with their own tools because they have "zero confidence" in the tool
Fedora Unity uses. This would prevent the Unity Re-Spins from being
blessed or included in a Fedora Project torrent site.

>> If users would have downloaded the FC6 respins instead of the
>> "original cant be *touch* updated nor fixed after the release"
>> ones would have saved alot of trouble ( I586 issue ).
> 
> The problem with this is the amount of work it would take before many
> of us would feel comfortable with them replacing the gold images.  The
> code path used at install time is a bit fragile and replacing what was
> tested at GOLD time with a bunch of new packages (which at times won't
> work at all.  It's quite literally yet another release to freeze for,
> spend a bunch of time QAing, fixing various bugs, etc...

Surely if a handful of volunteers can do it, as they do now, it
shouldn't be the slightest problem for Red Hat, would it?

 and when we're
> doing (currently) a full release every 6 months with 3 test releases
> between each, there really just isn't any bandwidth left to add respins
> with updates into the mix, especially if we want a chance at all of
> doing any tools development.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think respins are great, but I really really
> don't feel comfortable offering them up as anything other than 'use at
> your own risk' and certainly not to replace the GOLD spins where yeah,
> there might be bugs, but at least they're known and usually have
> suitable workarounds.
> 

One of which is to compose a spin with the updates fixing the issues,
don't you think?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
- -kanarip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG/R8OKN6f2pNCvwgRAg19AKCybiUhgDjM8EvmVvhA+vnc1z94BwCeLEX7
QWejU65s3e0RV3h6D2wAVfw=
=a2z/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----