reviving Fedora Legacy
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 13:12:04 UTC 2008
David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>> I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained. If the
>>> goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to
>>> guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel,
>>> glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and
>>> complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old
>>> baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6
>>> months. How many legacy Fedora's would be retained? At some point
>>> it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy
>>> Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months.
>> Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases
>> guarantee? Forget backporting. Just upgrade the package. Take it
>> from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary.
>
> Once you start upgrading packages all over the place to a much newer
> version than was in the original release, you might as well just
> upgrade.
>
> Seriously, I don't know why people are so scared of just _upgrading_, if
> new packages are acceptable.
>
> I upgrade remote, headless machines with yum, and reboot them into the
> new distribution. Quite frequently. And I laugh at the people who say it
> doesn't work. It's a fairly fundamental part of my server management
> technique -- yes, I run Fedora on my servers.
What do you do when the upgrade kernel won't boot? This sometimes
happens even on updates within a version.
> Perhaps a better approach to this whole thing would be to educate people
> a little better that upgrades _do_ work, and they're generally fairly
> seamless. And to fix the occasional cases where they're not.
And supply them with spare test machines like you must use?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list