Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote: [...]
Fedora could make it's next release somewhere around the point where the paths start to diverge so people who wanted the fast-track unstable flavor could re-install as they apparently love to do, and the rest of us could just drift into stability.
Why would any Fedoran want to "drift into stability"? That is a contradiction in terms... If it was /so/ badly wanted as you claim, Fedora Legacy would be alive and well, don't you think?
No, Fedora, legacy or not, is not good at maintaining stability. I'm not surprised it didn't work and wouldn't expect it to work if revived.
My impression too, but experimental data trumps that.
What people actually do is run RHEL or Centos for their
actual work.
Depends on what "actual work" means...
Which leaves the question of how to get from one to the
other as you develop something new, then want to run it.
Move the SRPM over, rebuild on the target? Have done so several times, with minimal fuss. Also moved SRPMs to Aurora (on SPARC64, Fedora-based), and even ported SRPMs for stuff I couldn't find on Fedora from a variety of other distributions. I also maintained locally old packages for stuff where the newer one didn't work.
I'd expect anybody who used Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora for any length of time have done so too...