EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an
> > disgrace to the community for them not doing so.

So, first off, as I think I have indicated many times: we already do
use Fedora in places where it makes sense to. 

We don't exclusively use Fedora on all machines/instances, because it
doesn't make sense to. 

> That's something else that this policy could potentially addresses,
> frankly. The reason our infrastructure team doesn't use Fedora is
> because upgrading critical infrastructure every six months is simply
> infeasible. 

It's not only that. ;) 

* Having to upgrade every 6months or a year. 
* Having to redeploy/test all our applications on a new version every
  6months or a year. 
* Rate of updates is very high. We would need to schedule lots more
  outages to keep up with kernel and glibc updates for example. 
* Updates can break things/less tested than RHEL updates (This one I
  think is much less the case than it used to be, but still there). 
* Probibly some more things I'm not thinking of now. 

So, really, I can see us expanding use of Fedora in some areas, but I
don't know that we will ever get to "100% Fedora". In fact, depending
on how you figure that it's impossible. Things like some of our storage
or routers are not even able to run Fedora. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130722/28f0e612/attachment.sig>