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

Re: move to rawhide update



Paul,

>  > Whichever way you go, strong leadership, patience, and many hands are
>  > required to fight through the problems.  If the community cares enough and
>  > develops the necessary leadership, the project moves forward.  But it's
>  > never easy.
>  >
>  > It is my hope that people continue to use the tracking bug here, and
>  > align bugs to it, and use it to assess fitness of the current release:
>  >
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=461806&hide_resolved=1
>
> of course.  but the whole thing feels a lot like telling someone
> that their local dealership has closed, and they should write to
> the car's manufacturer for information about oil changes.  the
> scale of the solution doesn't match the needs of the problem.
> (the analogy is shaky, i agree.)

I agree with you here to a degree, but also by getting the Fedora
community involved you also get 1000s of extra bug testers, coders,
and community which I think in time will have much more of a positive
effect than negative. Unfortunately in the short term while everything
gets moved upstream and settles out there will be some pain.

> but as an example -- if bugs filed against the XO will be
> summarily closed by the developers because "it's not our problem,
> file it upstream", the larger OLPC community will be ill-served.

They won't be summarily closed if they are related to Fedora, but if
its the other application that is broken its very standard. I had
Microsoft do exactly the same at work the other day when it was proven
that it was a vendors AV causing the problem. Of course this will also
depend on the package maintainer and how responsive the reporter is.
For things like 3rd party stuff it might be worthwhile
using/recommending some of the recognised fedora repos for mp3 stuff
etc. I'm not sure how that would need to be handled from a legal
perspective.

> users of the XO are not typical open-source enthusiasts, and
> they're not the audience that current linux distributions are
> used to targeting.  the XO isn't a general purpose laptop, and
> was never intended to be.  it's better considered a "device",
> with special needs, and as such i think it will be under-served
> by the new generic release and support scheme.  while i agree
> that the current plan is probably the best we can come up with, i
> remain frustrated.

Also most XO users will probably unlikely to go and get software
that's not distributed through a supported stream such as a school
server or fedora repos. While the current situation isn't ideal but it
was my understanding that alot of the support was being moved to
country based teams which would then liaise with upstream
OLPC/sugarlabs/fedora so it might well work ok as that gets
implemented.

> thanks.  and sorry for the non-technical venting...  believe me,
> the real target of my rant is not the folks like you two who are
> continuing the mission.

Its not an issue. We're all hear for the same reason and probably all
frustrated for various reason. I came in at the very end of the 8.2.0
dev cycle. With the changes I've some how got a lot more involved than
I originally planned.... I started getting involved with small Fedora
devices because I wanted to help with a spin for Netbooks.... that's
sort of been replaced with this :-)

Peter


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