What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 18:33:02 UTC 2008

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> wrote:
>> I think the simplest would have requiring pushes direct to stable for
>> core packages (defining "core" as "anything installed by default on
>> the Desktop or Service livecd images") need some sort of signoff,
>> possibly from multiple people.
> Did you really have to use the word "core"?  I think everything on the
> Desktop live image is probably way too broad.  Does all Desktop Live
> functionality need to be protected? Or do we need to safeguard package
> updating functionality specifically?

Anything that is likely to be difficult/impossible to recover from 
deserves special consideration, but really the process should just make 
it difficult to skip the updates-testing step.  If something is 
important enough security-wise that it can't spend the usual amount of 
time in testing then it is important enough to get at least a couple of 
people to agree that it is both necessary and safe.   If things that 
have been in testing for some time break then you are sort-of justified 
in blaming someone else...

But, as I've mentioned before, I think you'd get much better public 
participation in testing if yum could do repeatable updates.  That is, 
I'm only interested in testing exactly the update that I will later do 
on my own more critical machine(s) and I'm not interested enough to 
maintain my own mirrored repository which is currently the only way to 
get exactly the same set of programs installed on 2 different machines 
at different times.  I'd probably dedicate a test machine or at least a 
vmware image and I suspect many others would too if they knew they could 
reproduce what they were testing with a simple update command on the 
more important machines.

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list