-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/01/2013 03:38 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 11/01/2013 01:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:50 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/01/2013 02:48 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 14:30:38 -0400, Stephen Gallagher
>>> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So yes, that sounds ambitious, but what do you think of
>>>> the idea?
>>>
>>> Is Fedora Server going to have its own package repository? If
>>> not it looks like there will be conflict with people who want
>>> to update packages in Fedora between releases that we
>>> wouldn't want to update for the server product.
>>
>> Yes, the same way that Fedora 19 and Fedora 20 have different
>> repositories. It's nothing new.
This is quite a bit different, in that it's not tracking a fedora
release. This would potentially mean "yet another" target for
builders and 3rd party repos to support. I would much rather track
the current fedora releases with better packaging, usability etc
than spawn an entirely new structure.
If we start down this path with each working group, we risk
fragmenting the distro's userbase.
I clearly did a bad job of explaining this, because I was trying to
indicate that up until the final release, it really should be just a
snapshot matching EXACTLY the Fedora Base release at that time. It
should be usable (but probably won't get any extra QA time over the
Base release). Then at the N.0 release, it should get branched away
and kept more tightly controlled. This doesn't mean that it can't get
updates out of the Base branches, but they should be merged in when
they're ready, not blasted in from the firehose.
> The difference is that now you either loose access to the other
> products components or you need to install old packages.
>
> Ie in Fedora Server 1.0 you will have to install packages built
> for Fedora 21, however if the product that produces them stays on
> a short release cycle, by the time we go 1.0 there not even
> security updates anymore for them. So what do we do ? We force
> other products to do security updates for 24 months ?
This was tried already with the fedora legacy wasn't it? Did that
die off from lack of interest or lack of resources?
Fedora legacy was mostly lack of resources as I understand it. Also a
confusion as to whether it was useful compared to a CentOS world.
It's important to note that in the picture I'm drawing here, N.0
essentially goes into maintenance mode at the moment of it's stable
release. Real new functionality should head to N+1 previews and only
get pulled back to N.x if it makes sense and someone is willing to do
the work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlJ0BeQACgkQeiVVYja6o6NN1QCfU35z6DI0SsSiV02ZflLiLsfC
Bw0An0KF3mG4vwR1Jub89zu99KJqYd/0
=lOff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----