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

Re: Mirror/server RFE: Do not remove old kernel from updates.



On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:17 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 13:07 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Monday 09 April 2007 12:56:59 Tony Nelson wrote:
> > >  Although it would be best for Fedora users if all
> > > updated packages were retained and available for downgrading, certainly the
> > > kernel deserves special consideration, as changes to the kernel can prevent
> > > the entire system from working.
> > 
> > And where do we find this mythical beast of unlimited storage?
> 
> ... and this is why open discussions always turn into spam fights.
> I asked for a special consideration concerning old kernel releases (!)
> that -were- released as an update for -active- fedora releases. (Read:
> F-Current, F-Current - 1).
> Soon Mr Matok turned the "kernel" into "software", and the need to keep
> the kernel -on the server- into supporting proprietary non-GPL (!!!)
> kernel modules (!!!) and from there on, we need mythical beast with
> unlimited storage and hordes of men to support the 2.4.x kernel Fedora
> Core 1 just because nVidia/ATI/VMWare/etc/<insert binary module name>
> refuses to fix their bugs.
> 
> If I can be allowed to stick to the subject, lets talk about numbers.
> Each kernel release (x86_64 in my case, including the
> kernel-devel.[i686/i586], xen and kdump) eats around 80MB.
> Keeping the 5 latest releases translates to 400MB.
> In comparison, each OO release is ~600MB. (660MB to be exact)
> -updates currently hold two OO releases - add -core to the mix, and OO
> alone eats 1800MB.
> 
> Now I may be dead wrong, and wasting 400MB of old kernels (for released
> versions only - not rawhide/test releases) is way-above-and-beyond
> Fedora's current capacity.
> Maybe Fedora should store the last released kernel of each minor
> release. (2.6.17-xxx, 2.6.18-xxx, etc) - I don't know, lets here some
> open discussion about it.
> ... Somehow I doubt that writing off my post as "not enough storage,
> against policy - good bye" can be considered constructive in any type or
> form.
> 
> - Gilboa
> 

s/lets here/lets hear/g
As I said, 5am... :(

- Gilboa


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