Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:12:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
David Woodhouse wrote:
I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained. If the goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel, glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 months. How many legacy Fedora's would be retained? At some point it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months.
Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases guarantee? Forget backporting. Just upgrade the package. Take it from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary.
Once you start upgrading packages all over the place to a much newer version than was in the original release, you might as well just upgrade.
Seriously, I don't know why people are so scared of just _upgrading_, if new packages are acceptable.
I upgrade remote, headless machines with yum, and reboot them into the new distribution. Quite frequently. And I laugh at the people who say it doesn't work. It's a fairly fundamental part of my server management technique -- yes, I run Fedora on my servers.
What do you do when the upgrade kernel won't boot? This sometimes happens even on updates within a version.
Yum updates leave the kernel you are currently running on in-place. Boot back to that one and file a bug.
And if the machine is remote and headless as above? Or just generally inconvenient to access or have down while you figure out what broke?