rpmforge and {enterprise, } Extras (Was Re: Initial Proposal for doing Enterprise Extras=

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Jarod Wilson schrieb:
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>> - rpmforge builds new packages often for several distributions
>>>>> including
>>>> those that are in "Maintenance state" (FC3, FC4 currently); Fedora
>>>> Extras is more conservative here
>>> What about RHEL2.1 and RHEL3 ? People need a decent subversion for those.
>>> If you apply your current rules to the release of RHEL2.1 or RHEL3 you'd 
>>> be providing subversion 0.19 ad 0.90. Very stable and pretty useless !
>> Well, those people are still on RHEL 2.1 and RHEL3 for some reasons.
>> Probably because kernel, gnome, X, and several other stuff is working
>> quite well for them. So if they don't want newer versions of that stuff
>> -- why should they want a new subversion?
> That is a perfectly valid example. I know of folks running
> mission-critical RHEL3 (or older) servers that they'd like to add
> something modern, like an up-to-date subversion server to...

Sure. There is always somebody that wants some new stuff. And there are
always people that fear new stuff because it might break things. So
there are three ways out:

1. update everything always to the latest version
2. publish a dists once and only apply security updates later and never
version updates
3. draw a line somewhere between 1 and 2 -- but where? which packages
get updates, which not? One want's updates for foo and no updates for
bar, the next users the other way around.

In fact it's always "3". But RHEL is closer to "2" and Fedora closer to
"1". And that's how FE and EPEL should work, too. And for dists that are
in "Maintenance state" I think it should always be close to "2" in the
default repo.

CU
thl