reviving Fedora Legacy

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:12:04AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>>> I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained.  If the  
>>>> goal is increased stability and security patches, you need to  
>>>> guarantee that you have folks supporting backpatches to the kernel, 
>>>> glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and several other large and  
>>>> complex packages.  Incorporating new security patches into old  
>>>> baselines is *hard*. Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 
>>>> months.  How many legacy Fedora's would be retained?  At some point 
>>>> it seems the legacy volunteer force would saturate and legacy  
>>>> Fedora's would have to start dropping off every 6 months.
>>> Why do we need to guarantee any more than active Fedora releases  
>>> guarantee?  Forget backporting.  Just upgrade the package.  Take it  
>>> from the current Fedora and rebuild it if necessary.
>>
>> Once you start upgrading packages all over the place to a much newer
>> version than was in the original release, you might as well just
>> upgrade.
>>
>> Seriously, I don't know why people are so scared of just _upgrading_, if
>> new packages are acceptable.
>>
>> I upgrade remote, headless machines with yum, and reboot them into the
>> new distribution. Quite frequently. And I laugh at the people who say it
>> doesn't work. It's a fairly fundamental part of my server management
>> technique -- yes, I run Fedora on my servers.
>
> What do you do when the upgrade kernel won't boot?   This sometimes  
> happens even on updates within a version.

Yum updates leave the kernel you are currently running on in-place.
Boot back to that one and file a bug.

josh