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

Re: lwn article on the death of Fedora Legacy



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Yeah.
>
> And also, if at all possible,
>
> E) See if any Fedora Core engineers are interested in, out of the goodness
>    of their hearts, building updates for their packages in Legacy when it
>    isn't much extra work -- and enabling them to easily do so.
>
>
The only problem with this is WHY ever go with the latest FC6 or 7 or
whatever if you can have the packages updated to the latest even if
you have FC2.

It is extra work.  The patches need to be verified against usually
different source trees before applying and etc.  It would be good if
every package was the latest, then FC? could be compatible with
FCy...  etc.

Then dare I say you have inter-package dependencies, that usually
throw everyone for a loop.  It seems these days that every package is
highly dependent on every other package to be installed.

I think the problem is we may have too many people with the wrong
platforms to properly build, test, patch, debug, and etc that they
mostly move either to the latest FC? series or another distro all
together.  This may be interesting as a poll question.....

I've been with FC1 now for years.  When they announced that FC1 would
no longer be supported (many many years ago)  I found out about Fedora
Legacy.  I was willing to help; but, I couldn't find a good source for
instructions on how to help.  It has changed a bit... but, in the end
I ended up rolling my own updates, much like DAG, etc.  I still do...
but, I'm only one person.

I could go ON and ON about the history, but, that doesn't change the
facts.

Legacy is all about security-updates!!!  ONLY!!!
The policy is update with PATCHES if at all possible.  From RH even
better; otherwise fall back to other sources for patches such as the
development groups, etc.  Only if EVERYTHING else fails, you can
update to the latest stable release to fix the flaw.

Sincerely,
James Kosin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 
iD8DBQFFOMf5kNLDmnu1kSkRApQKAJwIMDv6Y7/rbumnVwfoCWbZ+DMwsQCfcdE5
XvL81Ec+mEO4Rh1M79eNUTI=
=IA1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net


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