Dave Johansen wrote:
> RHSCL is a non-starter where I work (and I imagine at other
> locations). 2-3 years of support just isn't enough to make it a
> worthwhile investment.
Well, there usually _is_ more than one (1) [RH]SCL per RHEL release.
So it's more like 2-3 releases that "rebase" every 2+ years, for 6-7
years total of the RHEL release.
The idea here is that you have up to three (3) years to "rebase." ;)
Not that [RH]SCL is 3 years and that's it. I mean ... understand my
intent here. Sustaining engineering is _not_ free, it's _not_
upstream, and people should be expected to rebase every 2-3 years,
when it comes closer to Upstream.
Again, understand the "bigger picture" of my "suggestion."
> For example, we just barely started upgrading to EL 7 ... (cut)
_So_ you will likely be on the _second_ [RH]SCL release for RHEL 7,
instead of the _first_. So ... what's the problem?
So ... I have to now ask ... have you used [RH]SCL? ;)
I.e., Again, it's _not_ only 3 years of RHEL, but 3 years per release,
with each RHEL releases getting 2-3 releases over 6-7 years.
Ergo ...
> For most packages, leaving the version that's there alone is probably
> a decent solution, but for packages where security fixes continue to
> happen and are important, then an "official" upgrade path would be
> good. Maybe something like:
> 1) Current maintainer identifies upgraded version and reason for update
> (hopefully limited to security fixes or something along those lines and not
> just "I want a newer version"),
> 2) Notifies intention on mailing list,
> 3) Feedback from community, and
> 4) Perform upgrade
Which works out very well for something that rebases every 2-3 years
... like [RH]SCL.
Again, I wasn't trying to say "be like [RH]SCL," but more like,
"Here's a Red Hat add-on that kinda already has this 'lifecycle' that
Red Hat customers would understand."