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

Re: gFTP 2.0.14



On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:19, Phillip Compton wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 01:01, Jonathan C. Sitte wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Seems odd to me but gFTP 2.0.14 is crashing on me allot. Anyone else
> > have this problem? Also when I use to upload images some of them do not
> > upload entirely. Just wondering if it is just me. :)
>
> Have you tried 2.0.16
>
> https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=677
>
> 2.0.14 and 2.0.15 seemed to crash a fair amount on me, bu 2.0.16 has
> been rock solid.

I agree about gftp-2.0.16 being rock solid.  In addition, it fixes handling of 
http so that it actually works correctly.

However, I do not understand the posting of a gftp update to fedora.us.  This 
package is part of Fedora Core 1.  Shouldn't this update be part of the 
updates flowing out of the Red Hat errata process?  While Red Hat updates do 
not always come out to "my" schedule (I want it "now" ;), how are users to 
differentiate between those available through 
http://download.fedora.redhat.com and those from http://download.fedora.us ?

This duplication does not make sense to me.  While making updated packages 
available through some "private" repository or server is OK with me, making 
them available through http://download.fedora.us is confusing since it 
carries some "official" status.

I really do not like cross-posting but will CC the devel list on this since I 
believe it is an important issue and is more likely to be addressed there 
(with the lower email volume).

I really empathize with the problem of needing an updated package and not 
being sure just when it will come from Red Hat since their limited resources 
are covering lots of areas and sometimes cannot address things like gftp as 
soon as some of us would like (yes, I had already built 2.0.16 packages for 
myself).

Perhaps there is some middle ground where user (non Red Hat) updated packages 
of packages in the Core can be placed and it would be clear that these were 
user updates.  It was/is my understanding that fedora.us focuses on "Extras" 
and "Legacy" rather than quick updates of packages in Fedora Core.

I would really like to hear from some Red Hat folks on this.  I would like to 
see some means of folks outside of Red Hat providing updated packages where 
Red at currently does not have to resources available to do them "right now".  
After all, the whole idea of the Fedora Project is to leverage (utilize) 
resources outside of Red Hat to deliver a better product that could be done 
using only Red Hat resources.

Some of this may "shake out" over the next few months as the whole Fedora 
process develops.
-- 
Gene




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