On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:56 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
Great thread.
Glad someone appreciates it :)
On 08/06/2009 01:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to
> satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository.
There was some talk about additional tagging in RPM being available in
Fedora 13, wasn't there? Perhaps if that could propagate through the
build, repo, and yum tools there would be a way to solve for various
branches.
We discussed that a few branches of the thread back ;). The principal
problem with that is that it's tricky to have multiple 'tracks' within
one update repository - so if a package does get an 'adventurous' update
then hits a security bug, there's no way to have a separate update
without the adventurous change but with the security bug fixed. You then
don't have the ability to choose the 'stable but secure' path - you're
stuck with either the release package (stable but insecure) or the
updated package that includes the adventurous change (secure but
potentially unstable).
MythDora is a spin that's worth studying here. It provides a
specific
purpose, is pretty well-tuned to that purpose, and doesn't necessarily
update for every Fedora release.
One can imagine a 'Fedora Solid' spin that pays special attention to QA,
maybe only plans on every-other release, sometimes back-porting
release+1 things that make a huge win, maybe takes longer to compose
than a regular Fedora release. There was some talk about extending
updates to 18 months, which would make such a spin feasible.
I'm not sure you could _make_ a 'Solid' spin unless there was a Solid
update path to work off.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net