Gilboa Davara wrote:
I've been lurking this list for quite some time now, waiting for a good
reason to post...
Seems that I found one.
Let me first point out that this is not a rant; I understand that the
Fedora Core is supplied "as is" and that the FC development team isn't
working *for me*. In short, they don't owe me anything.
Plus, being a Linux developer myself, I can appreciate the *perceived*
(in my eyes) lack of interest in dealing with (what-seems-to-be-in-my-
eyes) bugs, when the FC5 development is at full swing.
This is largely a matter of perception. While many of the development
ideas get discussed in various lists and you see the result of the
development in the form of rawhide reports and new code, bug reports
tend to be fixed in a more resilent way. Logging into #fedorabot IRC
channel tends to give you a better idea of whats going on. Fedora
Bugzilla recently got a RSS feed feature when it works properly would
enable anyone to get the reports in a better way. I have also been
throwing out the idea of a bugs list for all the incoming reports,
comments and status changes in a equivalent way to the cvs commits list
However, here comes my problem:
FC5 is 6 months (at least) away.
The lvm2 problem was only fixed in -updates; it still plagues new
installations. (I saw a couple of threads about it in fedoraforum.) The
fix did not go downstream to a new ISO images.
Fedora Project does not push out new ISO images after a release has been
made. IIUC intermediate ISO images are considered a large amount of
burden in form of increased bandwidth usage for mirror maintainers
FC4 users cannot use their Palm and a full fix is no where to be
GDB is effectively dead when debugging libraries.
And python python-gtksourceview, while fixed in rawhide, will not making
it (at least to my knowledge) into FC4.
If you consider it critical enough, you can request a update for FC4 in
the reports have you made.
My question is simple:
Is it the view of the FC foundation, that the FC4 bug-fixing is taking
second seat to the FC5 development?
Fedora Foundation does not exist as of today but you can get my
independent opinion. Development isnt orthogonal to bug fixes. Active
development includes bug fixes many of which can potentially be released
as updated on the FC4/3 branches as required. While there is no
guarantee that all of the bugs that you come across will get fixed
within the time frame that would ideal for you, bugs are getting fixed
Is it acceptable, again, in the FC foundation's eyes, that up
release of the FC5, people will not be able to sync with their Palm or
have dead installations on their hands (lvm problem)
I may be wrong here, isn't the lvm problem big enough to require ISO
There are many other bugs like the installation crashes on some chipsets
or the Xorg display issue which are relatively wide spread. This goes
back to the question of whether we consider it appropriate it to have
new ISO images between releases but you dont really need to wait for
Fedora to do it. You can do this yourself along with anyone else who
considers it important. see
Isn't the Palm problem serious enough to warrant a switch to an
pilotd (and gnome-pilot)?
Am I the only to feel that these problems are critical?
Putting a bugzilla comment would get you the maintainer's opinion on this.
Again let me stress, that being free-riding user (Sadly enough,
to pitch in and find some why to contribute to FC) I'm in no position to
rant about the stability of FC4.
However, being someone with vested interest in the FC project, I'm very
interested in the view of the FC project about the above.
If you wish to contribute take a look at the help wanted page or
especially at Fedora Bug Squad efforts. There are many mentors who
are willing to help you get started with this. As someone who spend many
days triaging hundreds of bugs, I would certainly appreciate your