On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 15:45 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> So, here's another one I wanted to get some opinions on.
> If, and when, like me, you are suicidal enough to have your servers run
> Fedora, and for some foolish reason you decide to install zope/plone,
> you will need python2.4 which is like from the Core era (or before,
> dunno, don't care, looking forward, history is overrated).
> A lot of effort has been made towards building a python2.4 compat
> package, so that those that really really needed it could at least grab
> it from a repository where a bugzilla was attached and more of that
> "collaborative" and "upstream".
> It has worked well... in fact, it has worked very very well. However,
> the compat-python2.4 package was not accepted for inclusion in Fedora,
> for various reasons I cannot recall right now. Seemingly endless threads
> on the -devel list is about all I remember.
> The point of this message being; How do the other members of the Server
> SIG rate the importance of compat-/legacy tools and utilities being
> available in Fedora (rather then in the more-then-insignificant
> third-party-repository we all know about but do not dare mention)?
> Kind regards,
> Jeroen van Meeuwen
Well, I am beginning to see the 3rd-party repos (such as ***$$$$$$.%%%)
as almost necessary to get things done, but I also understand the need
for Fedora's very nitpicky (see, it's not just you!) need for very
clearly free (and patent-free) software inclusion policy. It avoids so
many legal hassles, and it spurs ingenuity for free software
Having said that, I think the reason why this compat package wasn't
included is somewhat important (as in, I'd like to know). Plone/Zope,
though not my preference, is definitely a major package to not include,
so the reason had better be good, especially if you have experience with
such a compat package working in a production environment.
Now, I also have a concern - why is it crazy to run Fedora as a server
right now? I'm doing it (for just over a month), and I've had nothing
but excellent service due to the great updated software online.
Granted, maybe I'm not running Google on my servers, but still, for
server components, is Fedora really so unstable? We all (or most of us,
anyway), run Fedora at home and develop on it with few problems, right?
Good point. I've been doing it since RH9, with one bare-metal reinstall
for one box at FC1->FC2. Mostly yum upgrades.
I think one of the goals for the SIG should include removing the
conception people have that Fedora isn't stable (unless you compare it
to something like Debian). If this attitude continues, then people that
package & work on Fedora will not work towards ensuring we have
bleeding-edge yet stable software. I don't see a contradiction between
running the latest *stable* release of a package (e.g., Apache HTTP
server or PHP) and running a *stable* server. Yes, there are degrees,
but I think Fedora falls into a broader term of stable for most needs.
This will really help, also, to get Fedora used in production
more-and-more. Why is Ubuntu getting all the attention? They run
practically the same packages as Fedora, but they are considered more
"stable". Yes, they long-term releases as well, but then that gives an
impression of stability to the whole brand. I think Fedora can use some
stable branding as well, even if we EOL after two releases. I just want
to run a great distro on production like I do on my PCs & laptop!
Okay, I'm done. Weren't we talking about python?
fedora-server-list mailing list
in your fear, speak only peace
in your fear, seek only love