Attn : Dave Jones Re: I just want one more option in the FC Kernels (Dave Jones)

[Pedro Fernandes Macedo]

Les Mikesell wrote:

>Actually, I didn't expect it to be such a controversial issue.  So
>far no one arguing against it has come up with any advantage to
>anyone in continuing to distribute known/fixed bugs.  It is not that
>big a deal to me because I always point new installs at a proxy server
>and pull updates immediately, but most of the other people I know
>who run Linux don't bother to do that.  The only real problem for
>me has been that for every version from RH9-FC2 I have one or more
>kinds of machines that will not install due to hardware problems
>(each machine will run one or more versions, but fails with at least
>one - and oddly, most of them were purchased loaded with RH linux).
>But, I'd rather switch than fight so I've been installing Centos 3.4
>on all of those.  I suspect though, that if the updates were backed 
>into the isos the install problems would have been fixed.
>  
>
The most reocurring reasons to not respin the isos (that I recall from 
previous discussions):
1 - lots of work (both legal and technical) to prepare the isos and push 
them to mirrors (also , if the mirrors were meant to keep the original 
isos and the respins , there's the disk space issue)
2 - probability that the respins would be less tested (since many people 
who test the test releases like to live on the edge and after the final 
release , enable the development repository and not the updates-testing)
3 - problematic on the support point of view... with only 1 official iso 
set per arch per release , it's already hard to help some people 
sometimes. We end up with lots of questions without any mention to 
necessary details , like version of the package , which release , etc... 
With respins , we add another variable. If the same baseline is kept , 
at least everyone knows what version was in the release before updating 
(which is handy sometimes)

That's all that I recall now...

--
Pedro Macedo