Mike Vanecek wrote:
> Because not everyone subscribes to all three lists and I want to get
> the perspective and feedback from those with more knowledge and
> experience that I have.
Everyone was not a party of the original post. If you have a problem
with what I have written...why don't you make an attempt to clear up any
misunderstandings before you go quoting me out of context of the
original thread on totally different lists. Very rude...not cool...you
lose mucho style points...I'm going to have to drink an extra shot of
tequila tonite to get over the monstrous insult you have wounded me
with. if you don't post a follow up apology on the lists you
cross-posted to...I'm going to be forced to drink yet another tequila
shot for each list you cross-posted to.
But if you really want to get this sort of perspective from other
lists...in the future...you might consider just posting something like
the archive url to other lists...so people can have a chance to see the
original thread...and the context my comments were made in. For
example...you could have just used this...
to indicate that you wanted comments on why i wrote in msg00379 of the
fedora-list,,,so people could follow the original thread.
-jef"I hate having to drink another tequila shot..."spaleta
Paul Gear wrote:
> Jef and Mike S.: hypersensitivity about netiquette can be just as
> unbecoming as the original offense.
Whose being hypersensitive? I'll make it more obvious next time that I'm
joking about being offended. No one on the list will actually know if i
drank 17 shots of tequila last night...but the idea of being forced to
do so to sooth my bruise ego over an insulted in a mailinglist, was
funny to me.
> Mike V. had a good reason for doing what he did, and you could be a
> little forgiving of the fact that he didn't do it in quite the way you
I'm not saying is reason wasn't valid...but his actions are short
sighted. I did give advice on how to handle it better in the future. I'm
trying to be helpful...though I think I'll go back to trying to be funny
since I clearly need more practice at that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:34:35 -0500, Mike Vanecek wrote:
> > [Recycling the reply I posted to redhat-list and fedora-list just a
> > few minutes ago. Why the separate cross-post?]
> Because not everyone subscribes to all three lists and I want to get the
> perspective and feedback from those with more knowledge and experience that I
There's no way to avoid further cross-postings now. Because postings
like that, which are ripped out of context, confuse the reader. Taking
a discussion to a different list where no related discussions take
place and where you miss the comments from Red Hat employees, is a bad
idea. The right place where to discuss the future of Red Hat Linux
would be fedora-list(a)redhat.com and maybe fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
(but that is devoted to the test release and less to general
discussion). Not even considering those subscribers who consider
> > Can you explain this question a bit? No part of what you quoted gives
> > a hint on what makes you think that "Fedore Core 1" will not be what
> > was expected to become Red Hat Linux 10.
> The poster said:
> > Unless something has changed recently..very recently...having apt or
> > yum work to do dist-upgrade like behavior is not something thats
> > getting a lot of Fedora Core development attention. You can
> > certainly try to do it, becuase both yum and apt have the ability to
> > do this sort of thing...but if it goes wrong...your bugs might not
> > be a high priority. Bug testing effort is best spent on issues
> > developers want tested...and to-date I haven't seen much interest
> > from the development side to make upgrading between releases with
> > apt a high priority.
> I am trying to plan for what action will need to be done due to the demise of
> RHL. Some have suggested that Fedora will be a logical replacement. Others
> have said that yum/apt might be used in place of up2date. Still others have
> suggested that redhat network will be migrated to Fedora.
Uhm. No idea where you've taken those rumours from. And I still don't
see what this has to do with the subject line and the quoted part
above. If you have questions, I'd rather open a new thread. It seems
you've subscribed just recently without skimming over the archives.
Anyway. Let's get a few things straight. First of all, up2date is part
of Fedora Core 0.94. There is no indication that it would go. RHN
channels are available as well. RHN will also serve Fedora Core final
release plus Updates with the usual priority access for paid accounts.
As you can read at http://fedora.redhat.com it might be that a Fedora
Extras RHN channel will also be an option. Would make sense to make
available at RHN as much "good stuff" as possible.
Up2date itself already supports apt/yum repositories. An enhanced
redhat-config-packages tool is planned (as one can read in the
installer screens). There are no plans to replace up2date with apt-rpm
or yum. (Where did you hear about such plans? Any quote available?)
But those alternative package utilities will be helpful for building
and necessary for accessing 3rd party repositories (even though
up2date supports apt/yum, too). That's why yum has been added to the
> The overall tone of the discussion does not seem consistent with Fedora being
> a redhat linux equivalent product.
I still fail to see what this has to do with the subject line and the
quoted message. There are concerns that the planned product life cycle
of Fedora Core (see http://fedora.redhat.com) is not enough. Yet it
remains to be seen whether the community won't support the product for
a longer period. There are concerns that Fedora Core -- compared with
Red Hat Linux -- will move closer to the bleeding edge and result in a
less stable distribution. Most of this is speculation. Some of the
documentation suggests that the modified update strategy will result
in more bug-fix updates (in form of new packages) compared with the
Red Hat Linux (which has been seeing mostly back-ported security
fixes). This can also turn out to be a good thing.
> If that is the case, then one might want to
> start a serious look for a replacement.
But there have been several related discussions already on the
fedora-* lists. Why take this to other lists in form of a confusing
> I need a stable 12-18 month release supported by something like up2date. It
> use will not be in a production environment, but it is not intended to be
> bleeding edge either.
> Some have suggested that we wait to see what develops. The exchange, however,
> seemed to imply that waiting might not be a good strategy.
I think you've misunderstood "that exchange" completely. It explains
that so-called "dist-upgrades" with apt-get, yum or up2date have not
been a supported upgrade path and are unlikely to be taken into
consideration. Hence if such a dist-upgrade fails for you, it's your
problem (apart from that, there won't be any phone/web based support
from Red Hat for Fedora Core anyway). It doesn't matter whether it
works for some users. Those upgrade paths don't see any kind of
special or official testing. The official upgrade path is with
Anaconda and CD/bootdisk. A similar thing are the repeated questions
on beta-to-beta or beta-to-final upgrades which are not supported
Back to your quote:
> I need a stable 12-18 month release supported by something like up2date.
Without a comment on the current pricing of Red Hat Enterprise Linux,
without knowledge of what products Red Hat has in the queue, and
without knowledge of how the Fedora Project will develop, your message
does not give enough input for discussion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Vanecek wrote:
> If I read this exchange correctly, Fedora may not be a RH 10
> equivalent for those users of previous versions of RHL. Not a good
I was speaking ONLY of the BETA/TEST release that is currently
available. At no point did I mean to imply anything about the official
release of Fedora Core scheduled for Nov.
But let me imply something about Fedora Core's first official
I don't expect upgrading from rhl9 using apt or yum to be something the
developers expect to work...since i don't expect using apt/yum to do be
an engineering goal during this test phase. Use of apt or yum may or may
not work to go from rhl9 to Fedora Core 1. But I bet money using the
update options in the Fedora Core iso images will be more reliably
becuase getting anaconda to work during the beta is going to be a higher
priority than making sure apt and yum are working as upgrade tools.
The key here is anaconda is the upgrade tool that is going to get the
testing and developer priority during this test phase that we are in
right now. Using apt or yum to go from rhl8 to rhl9 might work..but was
never really a priority for testing during the beta that came before
rhl9. Using the Fedora Core iso images...and doing an upgrade from
Fedora Core 1 will be the most reliable upgrade option.
This test phase that we are in...is still...very much a tradition RHL
like animal. You have to remember the newly announced Fedora project is
still getting the pieces and policies in place. This beta phase that we
are in pre-dates the announcement about the change of name to Fedora.
Cristian Stefan wrote:
> Hi I am new to RH and i have installed RH9 and managed to update it
> with apt4rpm .So...
> The obvious question is :
> How can I manage to put some repositories to get a dist-upgrade from RH9
> to Fedora ?
This sort of question about apt or yum comes up a lot. And though I can
not tell how to get apt to do this...because I don't use apt. I do have
to question whether or not its WORTH upgrading to the test release this
As of now...using either apt/yum to upgrade to a new release is not
something the Fedora Core developers are making a priority to test and
make sure works. If you are able to use apt to upgrade to the new test
release, and you have problems...your bugreports might not be useful at
all...and their might be very little interest in helping fix the
problems you encounter becuase you have used an un-supported upgrade
I think..if you are going to be running the beta..and be a beta
tester..you have to be willing to follow some basic rules on expected
behavior. One of those rules have been that you are going to have to
either upgrade from a previous official release using the ISO image
based upgrade methods provided by the official installer. Or You will be
doing a fresh install using the provided methods.
Unless something has changed recently..very recently...having apt or yum
work to do dist-upgrade like behavior is not something thats getting a
lot of Fedora Core development attention. You can certainly try to do
it, becuase both yum and apt have the ability to do this sort of
thing...but if it goes wrong...your bugs might not be a high priority.
Bug testing effort is best spent on issues developers want tested...and
to-date I haven't seen much interest from the development side to make
upgrading between releases with apt a high priority.
-jef"thinks the website needs Tester Guidelines, to help give testers an
indication of what the priorities are for different test
I have some additional information to further clarify the mount/umount issue:
>From a straight boot up, mount/umount works normally. Thanks go bad whenever
I run redhat-config-packages and attempt to install additional packages from
the distribution disks. redhat-config-packages refuses to mount the
distribution disk it is calling for. The only choice I have is to abort the
package install. There is an entry in /var/log/messages:
Sep 28 09:08:28 steverod userhelper: pam_timestamp: timestamp file
`/var/run/sudo/srodgers/unknown:root' is too old, disallowing access to
redhat-config-packages for UID 500
After this event, I have trouble with the command line mount/umount commands
as I mentioned in my previous message.
A (hopefully) quick query. Can someone provide some insight into the
selection of MySQL 3.x as opposed to 4.x in Fedora, in light of 4.x
being the present production version series?
Curiously of note, is that the postgreSQL version that is installed is
7.3.4 which is the latest production version of that product.
ACPI worked fine in test 1, but not in test2. Not sure why. When I
type service acpid [anything at all] I get no error messages and no
acknowledgement that it did anyghint. The logfile is empty. Also when
I just type acpid, it gives me the error message:
acpid: /proc/acpi/event: no such file or directory
According to the release notes, ACPI should work in this release. What
can I do to get it working?
Marc Schwartz wrote:
> A (hopefully) quick query. Can someone provide some insight into the
> selection of MySQL 3.x as opposed to 4.x in Fedora, in light of 4.x
> being the present production version series?
Things to note....
We are on the second set of isos now for this beta/test phase. A lot of
previous discussion on pretty much all the 'important' packaging issues
has been hashed through at least once in a mailinglist. The chances that
the people with authoritative answers to give are going to respond, will
probably lower as the number of times the same issue comes up. Please be
aware that there are a couple of months of discussion already for this
beta/test phase. And what's great, Red Hat's mailinglist archives have a
search feature now....though it could be better. I still find it easier
to search my locally archived digest emails in evolution, than to use
Red Hat's web archvice search interface....but I digress. You may also
want consider using the fedora-test list to talk about issues specific
to the beta/test releases.
-jef"still waiting for oneko to show up in Fedora Extras"spaleta