KDE vs. GNOME on F10

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Aug 7 02:24:49 UTC 2009


On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:56 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> Great thread.

Glad someone appreciates it :)

> On 08/06/2009 01:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to
> > satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository.
> 
> There was some talk about additional tagging in RPM being available in
> Fedora 13, wasn't there?  Perhaps if that could propagate through the
> build, repo, and yum tools there would be a way to solve for various
> branches.

We discussed that a few branches of the thread back ;). The principal
problem with that is that it's tricky to have multiple 'tracks' within
one update repository - so if a package does get an 'adventurous' update
then hits a security bug, there's no way to have a separate update
without the adventurous change but with the security bug fixed. You then
don't have the ability to choose the 'stable but secure' path - you're
stuck with either the release package (stable but insecure) or the
updated package that includes the adventurous change (secure but
potentially unstable).

> MythDora is a spin that's worth studying here.  It provides a specific
> purpose, is pretty well-tuned to that purpose, and doesn't necessarily
> update for every Fedora release.
> 
> One can imagine a 'Fedora Solid' spin that pays special attention to QA,
> maybe only plans on every-other release, sometimes back-porting
> release+1 things that make a huge win, maybe takes longer to compose
> than a regular Fedora release.  There was some talk about extending
> updates to 18 months, which would make such a spin feasible.

I'm not sure you could _make_ a 'Solid' spin unless there was a Solid
update path to work off.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list