Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy

Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org
Wed Nov 15 20:34:17 UTC 2006


On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> >I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to
> That's the first problem...  You either need to be able to force them
> to do the right thing, or punish them for failure.  If you can't do one
> or the other of those then you're screwed, to put it bluntly.

Well, we're screwed, then. :)

> "sticks" work also.  You get hacked, we unplug you from the network until
> you comply.  Gets their attention real fast when they are removed from
> the network.  Works better than carrots actually, in the long run.

Oh, we do that if it comes to that. However, the goal is to avoid that in
the first place.

[...]

> 1.08 years...  But your call for 2.5 years seems way too long for a project
> that wants to be cutting edge (and which you point out your users want
> because it is cutting edge.  If they want cutting edge, they need to upgrade
> once a year, or else they are not cutting edge anymore).

Well, as I said, 2.5 years would be ideal, but I recognize it to be not
really obtainable. I really would like, however, to see 1.5, or better, 1.6.

> >panning out, and how it fits with merging Extras and Core. The availability
> >of Extras is currently a huge draw for Fedora over CentOS.)
> CentOS has Extras/Plus also for a lot of packages...  And there are lots of

Nothing like Fedora Extras, though. And third-party repos can be helpful but
coordinating them is work, and each requires a layer of maintenance of its
own.
 

[...]
> I really disagree.  The project is to be cutting edge, your users want
> cutting edge, the only way to do that is to upgrade yearly.  Otherwise,

Oh yes. In short, users want cake and they want to shoot themseves in the
foot with it.

> both the project and your users are not cutting edge.  If you can't
> manage the upgrades in a year, then you need to hire more staff locally

Yes, it'd be great to be able to convince everyone I support to hire more
staff. That ain't going to happen.

> (or better automate your upgrades).

There's significant engineer resistance to working towards making Fedora
yum-upgradable between releases. So that's really a non-starter.


> Now, I really do feel for you and your situation.  But I don't think you
> can impose your bad situation on the Fedora Project, when you claim your

Clearly I'm in no position to impose anything. However, it'd certainly be
helpful to us if Legacy could contine to extend the lifespan beyond the new
proposed 13 months. And I mention it in case I'm not alone. [*]




* In fact, I'm pretty certain I'm not, and that there are thousands of users
running FC1, FC2, and FC3 and just waiting to become botnet members if
they're not already. The difference is that my users have me to care about
them.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>




More information about the fedora-legacy-list mailing list