Les Mikesell wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> No gotcha here. I don't expect users to handle the issues. Either the
> users in question want the opportunity to run the latest software in an
> integrated distro and so choose to run Fedora or they want to have a
> stable platform on which to deploy their own work and therefore they use
> CentOS/RHEL/Debian Stable.
No, it's not an either/or scenario.
You're confusing what you want with what is. What is *is* an either/or
scenario as there is no definite path from starting with Fedora to
getting to a long term OS. What could be is a long term release for
certain releases if you and other like minded people do the work to
offer security updates and major bugfixes beyond the current EOL.
Users may way to develop something
new and be willing to put up with unstable fedora to get current tools
for that, but there is no clear transition plan to put what they have
built into production. In the old RH X.0 -> X.1 -> X.2 days the
transition from a new release to a stable OS usable in production
happened through updates - now it doesn't happen at all. Support is
simply dropped for the platform you started on and there is no reason to
expect anywhere near the same library versions and environment as you
migrate to a stable platform.
> There's a right tool for any job and a wrong tool. Using your crescent
> wrench to hammer nails is possible but not very satisfying.
What's the 'right' tool to develop for the next version of Centos?
Why, the initial release of the Fedora version that the next version of
CentOS is going to be based on, of course! :-)
And if you want to ask which version of Fedora that is, I'd like to ask
you how you knew there was going to be a RHL 6.2 but not a RHL 6.3; a
RHL 7.3, but not a RHL 8.1....
-Toshio