Thoughts about James' Updates on Legacy list

[James Kosin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
 
Warren Togami wrote:

| James Kosin wrote:
|
|> |
|> | http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/repo-coord I think instead
|> | James' repository would be better suited as being part of an
|> | external individually maintained coalition of repositories like
|> | these guys.
|>
|> I don't really fit in here either.  I just maintain an FC1 server and
|> have been stuck with this due to HW problems if I upgrade.  So, I've
|> been dabbling (if you don't mind the use of the word) in creating
|> RPM's from the fedora core RPMs for FC1 and the updates online at the
|> developers sites for the software, and rolling out new packages for
|> FC1 that way.  This way I can keep ahead with some of the software
|> that I use regularly that doesn't get updated in Fedora Legacy.
|>
|
| One possible danger here is if you no longer maintain this FC1
| server at some point in the future, people previously relying on
| your updates suddenly no longer have a supported source of updates.
| Then those users are faced with the choice of upgrading distros,
| downgrading to Legacy supported packages, or beginning to make their
| own packages.

Actually, I thought I was alone in using FC1... and will probably do
so long past may have moved on.  Like I said earlier, unless a
catastrophic event blows up our development server...  I will keep it
at FC1 as long as humanly possible.
I also don't provide a large scope of updates.  Except for the vanilla
kernel and the gcc update to 3.3.6 that I have.  Most of the others
are easily repackaged.  I actually learned the gcc package was more
complicated than the kernel package, but, I stuck with it.

|
|> |
|> | I think it is appropriate for James to occasionally mention the
|> | existence of his repository on Legacy list, as it is related to the
|> |  same distributions used by Legacy list members.  The posts would
|> | contain a general repo description and link to more information,
|> | and appear maybe a few times during the year.
|> |
|> | However it is off-topic for individual package announcements or
|> | even summaries to be posted here as they are version upgrades,
|> | outside the scope of Legacy's mandate.  Another important part of
|> | Legacy is collaborative development of a centralized repository,
|> | which is not the goal of James' updates.
|>
|> Ok, point taken.  I'd be willing to do this if no one objects.  Or I
|> could post a web-page (if I had the time) to post my complete
|> announcements to and only post an occasional reminder to the list with
|> the web-page address.
|> This might make everyone happier, including me.
|
|
| You might also want to create your own mailing list for interested
| users, and that can be part of your periodic mention on this list
| about your repository.

I'll think on this.  It is a good suggestion; but, I still would like
to see Fedora-Legacy embrace my packages one day.  Except for maybe
the kernel packages, since they are further from the RedHat / Fedora norm.
I post here; because I want everyone to benefit from these updates.
Not because I want to confuse the issue.

RedHat, Fedora and Fedora Legacy have a two fold operation on updates:
(1)   If it is not broke, don't update it.  (sometimes a good idea;
but, what about new features or more supported features)
(2)   Only patch security fixes or CAN / CSV security updates.
(sometimes an important bug doesn't get fixed unless addressed by a CAN).

This makes the procedure of verifying packages easier.  Less broken
things, because you only fix what is broken and don't add new features
that may break or introduce new problems.

I'm not knocking RedHat, Fedora or Fedora-Legacy this is a good
point.  But, some of us need more than just patches to get us by.
I know, If you really want the latest, why not update to FC4...  The
problem there is that this is a server.  I shouldn't have to strip the
system down and rebuild it every 6-months or so.  I also don't have
the money or budget to spend lots of money on RedHat ES.
Also, my time is money $$$.  I can't spend 2-days to a week debugging
and setting up the server again.... and again... and again...

DAG, ATrpms and others are OK.  But, I find they often have
dependencies on libraries not in the FC1 build or they only have
optimized builds for i686 that either crash my system or have problems
of their own.  But, they also have their place in the scheme of
things.  I'm also not knocking these repos...  They do a far better
job than I could at keeping things updated.  They usually take things
to the cutting edge.  I just don't want to be their either...  I just
want something in the middle.

|
| Warren Togami
| wtogami at redhat.com

Thanks,
James Kosin

|
| --
| fedora-legacy-list mailing list
| fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
| https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
 
iD8DBQFDOrUFkNLDmnu1kSkRAyMiAJ9djVRgVmhONF1GgkCZZ79ONp2NeACeLjyF
ZEZweZP9p/0nRfxlBR+6bFA=
=sJIC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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