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

Re: portage vs yum

Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:40:27AM -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Olivier Galibert <galibert pobox com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:59:30PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
Reading opinions like these, I have the impression that most people
only think of individual, hacker-type users, not about, say, system
administrators maintaining large networks of systems, having to
support those systems (and users) easily, etc.
Well, Fedora is becoming more and more hostile to the sysadmin
population as time goes too, so...
If so, that is a (meta)bug well worth fixing... Details, please?

Well, from my point of view from a part-time sysadmin in a lab with
200+ computers to handle, the two main problems are:
- 6-months release cycle, with reinstall needed

6 month release cycles are not a new change and shouldn't be cited as "increasingly hostile". If you consider shorter release cycles as not appropriate for you, Fedora has always been that way.

Reinstall is not needed. You can do upgrades via Anaconda. Upgrades via the package managers might not be official supported but it is definitely doable and I have done for several releases successfully.

For the first two questions, "Core" was a godsend, and "Prime" is
nowhere near it.

Actually the renamed "Prime" spin which is called "Fedora" spin is very close to what "Core" was. That is explicitly the purpose of that spin.

At fc3 or fc5 time, the delay before eol-ing was two years and not

Incorrect. Fedora updates cycle was about 9 months and extended to about 13 months before the release of Fedora 7.


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