[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Update strategy



On 5/16/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
On 15.05.2007 23:13, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The early majority wants stability with updates occuring at known
> times. They want technology refreshes, but want a seal of approval of
> some sort that the organization is steady, has standards, or has a
> company that will stand behind it. They also want the same thing as
> close to possible on as many of their systems (as they will have
> RHEL-3,4, and 5 deployed as servers that they want to add stuff to).

Those are IMHO round about one of the targets for EPEL -- even if there
is no company behind EPEL, they get stuff missing in RHEL easily with EPEL.


I thought about this some more last night. Would the EPEL repository
be better suited with an 'alternate' tree structure?

X.old            Last release
X.stable        Current release
X..testing      Stuff might be pushed to current release
X.rawhide    Stuff that might go into testing for next release.

X.Y/SRPMS
X.Y/<arch>

with symbolic links to show the tree structure.
4.4 -> 4.old
4.5 -> 4.stable
4.6 -> 4.testing
4.7 -> 4.rawhide

This would allow people who are doing different levels of testing to
aim at a said set?




--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]