Anaconda: good work!
Hans Kristian Rosbach
hk at isphuset.no
Fri Mar 24 07:11:04 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:58 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 3/23/06, Hans Kristian Rosbach <hk at isphuset.no> wrote:
> > Just thought I'd voice this before the maintainers just let go
> > and completely focus on the one for FC6. I bet obvious fixes
> > will be detected in the starting phase of developing for FC6
> > and those might be backported to FC5 aswell.
> Installer bugs happen with pretty much each release. fixed boot.isos
> are usually made available as links in bugzilla tickets as issues are
> addressed and I believe there is a mechanism which is applied to
> incorporate fixes into the mirrors so people doing network installs
> can avoid some problems.
> But at no point have I ever seen any discussion at any time which
> suggests the release team is interested in spinning up replacement
> isos and distributing them. And quite frankly I don't think this is
> the most appropriate time to suggest a change in the release model
> I don't think your request for fc5 anaconda updates post release day
> is going to change any minds as to the support tradeoffs associated
> with official respins that incorporate installer changes.
This is not at all what I mean. I mean the anaconda.rpm that I can
download and install on my already installed FC5 computer.
There is bound to be some amount of bugs biting that could be
fixed very easily. I just ask that you sit down in a few weeks time
and take a look over what went wrong with FC5 and backport the
obvious bugfixes from rawhide. After that you probably wouldn't
have to do anything more with it.
I made unofficial FC4 respins (FC4.1 and FC4.2), these ONLY use
the official rpms from the fedora project. None of them rebuilt by me.
Because of this I was stuck with the known buggy anaconda.rpm that
never ever got a single update to fix even the most obvious bugs after
the FC4 release.
Tracking rawhide is going to prove very difficult since I have no
intimate knowledge about anaconda and what parts are sensitive to
changes. Also this would defeat my purpose of using only the official
rpms (base/updates only) from current release.
Dont know what more to say, but I'm a bit disappointed.
> This is the sort of thing that should be debated during the
> testing phase, so plans can be in place to support respins if you are
> able to convince the people who have to do them that its a good idea.
We had a fairly long discussion on this list about this during devel.
More information about the devel