On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Adam Williamson<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
We've had this discussion before, but to re-state my opinion: the
only
sane way to handle this is multiple, discretionary update repositories.
A repository for security and stable bugfix updates, and a repository
for other updates - major version bumps whose purpose isn't solely to
fix a security issue or, with minimal changes, a clearly identified bug.
It's more work, but it's the only workable consistent system that
doesn't restrict some maintainer from being able to do what they want to
do. A distribution with much fewer resources than Fedora (Mandriva) has
been using this system successfully, to the satisfaction of developers
and users, for several releases now.
The system gives users the flexibility to choose whether they want a
'traditional' stable update system, or a more adventurous,
version-upgrading system. And maintainers can choose whether or not they
want to take on the work of shipping updates in the adventurous
repository. In all cases, users and maintainers both know what each
repository is for, and what they'll be getting depending on which they
choose to use.
<snip>
+1
Would definitely be one way to solve this sort of problem.
-Adam
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\
www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments