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

Re: 5.1 -> 5.2 move



On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge gmail com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Michael A. Peters <mpeters mac com> wrote:
>>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stephen John Smoogen (smooge gmail com) said:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think we have one. We have dealt with the older policy where
>>>>> things conflicted with 5.1 but not 5.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly are the packages having problems?
>>>>
>>>> gtkhtml3 was rebased in 5.2, changing ABI. We can ship (in EPEL)
>>>> a gtkhtml38 package, but it will conflict at the file level with
>>>> gtkhtml3 from 5.1 and earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> I suppose there was a very good reason for the base change, but I thought
>>> things like this are one of the issues using RHEL was suppose to avoid.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that there are 2 customer demands that RH is trying to meet:
>> 1) Newer software for the desktop so that OpenOffice/FireFox are able
>> to use newer tools
>> 2) Older software for the desktop so that OpenOffice/Firefox stick to
>> the same data forever.
>>
>> The way RH 'solves' this is by having minor branches.. so people who
>> want to avoid the problem can stick with the 5.1.x tree. This is where
>> EPEL, CentOS, SciLin, DAG etc. are going to run into problems. To meet
>> a majority of customers we need to have several trees that we compile
>> and test from.
>>
>> 4.5.x?
>> 4.6.x
>> 4.7.x
>> 5.1.x
>> 5.2.x
>> 5.3.x
> Sanity's mom called, she said he was missing.
>
> Wow.
>
> That's painful on so many levels.  Why not just create a separate
> Desktop vs Server platform and be done?  Keep ABI in some tree but not
> the next but maybe this one, but when I upgrade some apps like it and
> some don't.  You've successfully confused even the longest of RHEL
> users.
>

Yeah, the problem is that the customers who want the newer Firefox/OOo
want the older other stuff to stay compatible with the rest of their
5.1 infrastructure. And they also want the OOo for their servers for
form writing etc. Having lived in that crazy world... the sanity is
missing quite a bit... but its mostly on the customers side wanting
really weird stuff and having the money to pay for it.

> If they want modern Firefox/OOo, use Fedora.  Isn't that the point?  I
> need ABIs that don't break when I type yum update.  That's the bottom
> line for an enterprise.
>
> stahnma
>
>> .....
>>
>> And that's a lot of RPMs/bandwidth after a while. If we just move the
>> branch to 5.2 then 'customers' who are sticking to 5.1.x are going to
>> be dead in the water with EPEL. If we branch we are going to need to
>> come up with appropriate repo-tags to separate branches for people.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
>> How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
>> in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> epel-devel-list mailing list
>> epel-devel-list redhat com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
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]