Fedora 19 status is ALIVE, GA on July 02, 2013
sergio at serjux.com
Sat Jun 29 01:06:38 UTC 2013
On Sex, 2013-06-28 at 14:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 22:43 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:13:09 +0200
> > > drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Matthew Garrett
> > >> <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > >> > and we have no history of producing updated
> > >> > install images.
> > >>
> > >> Is there *any* reason why we can't? This sounds like a reasonable
> > >> thing to do. Just because we have not done it in the past is not a
> > >> reason not to.
> > >
> > > Sure we could. We would need to:
> > >
> > > * Have some way to freeze things so we could stablize for the release.
> > We should use the GA package set + the fixed build not get all updates in.
> > It is to fix one bug not to create updated images.
> I think there's some confusion here. You now actually seem to be talking
> about the specific question of producing an updated install image one
> time, for this one issue, but at first it seemed like you were
> advocating it as The New Way Forward.
> Assuming we find a single simple change that Fixes Mac UEFI Dual Boot in
> anaconda, then from a purely technical standpoint, yes, we could
> theoretically throw together a boot ISO and DVD with the fix in quite
> easily. All it'd need would be a new build of anaconda with only that
> fix, and someone to run pungi a couple of times.
> Given the apparent constraints on network access on Macs it might even
> make sense to do that in this particular case, if someone wants to spend
> the time on it.
> The way I'd envisage that happening, though, is that we stick them up
> pretty unofficially with a 'this is an image we think might install
> better on Macs, use it if you like' label on it. I definitely wouldn't
> want to go around sounding trumpets and calling it Fedora 19.1.
> Something altogether less official and more low key seems appropriate.
I like the idea of 19.1 pretty unofficially or untested, which fix some
issues on mac installs. Which is basically someone run pungi with new
boot installer stuff.
Fedora installer already install updates, when we internet, if I'm not
wrong or at least in my install methods, so we don't need a 19.1 for
others things that aren't in boot process. And if some team fix and
release some packages that fix boots of any kind why not ?
Release 19.1 could be only directories releases/19.1/Fedora/$arch/iso
and releases/19.1/Fedora/$arch/os/EFI,images and isolinux , without all
Sérgio M. B.
More information about the devel