Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
brandon at pwnage.ca
Tue Sep 21 14:20:05 UTC 2010
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest
Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of
doing this on GNU/Linux.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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'
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the devel