reviving Fedora Legacy

[Les Mikesell]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:12:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yum updates leave the kernel you are currently running on in-place.
> Boot back to that one and file a bug.

And if the machine is remote and headless as above?  Or just generally 
inconvenient to access or have down while you figure out what broke?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com