Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Sep 21 12:01:20 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote:
> > Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
> > Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> > Am I right?
> Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer
> to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the
> fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they
> create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and
> stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers
> could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports
> repo. Whether "official" or not, just imagine what can happen
> if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better
> attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in
> production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at
> Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier.
I think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place'
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel