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 -kanarip
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 -kanarip
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 alternatives, ideally.
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?
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?
Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip-rPbSFGvyE0tBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org writes:
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)?
Zope has had a long time to get with the program.
I don't find compat/legacy important for the servers I run. There's always CentOS for everything obsolete.
/Benny
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)?
I think they're important to have for maybe 2 releases, but that (a year) should be enough time to migrate any Fedora package or 3rd-party apps.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip _______________________________________________ fedora-server-list mailing list fedora-server-list@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-server-list
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 -kanarip
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 alternatives, ideally.
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 fedora-server-list@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-server-list
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 15:45 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: 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.
So have I, but it's beside the point of OP that I was trying to make. A yum upgrade on a server every 6 months is only so much feasible in most production environments is what I was trying to say.
-Jeroen
Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 15:45 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: 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.
So have I, but it's beside the point of OP that I was trying to make. A yum upgrade on a server every 6 months is only so much feasible in most production environments is what I was trying to say.
True. I've found myself able to schedule them to minimize disruption. And screen is my friend. :)
-Jeroen
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Basil Mohamed Gohar -
Benny Amorsen -
Jeroen van Meeuwen -
Jon Ciesla