Compat- packages in Fedora

[Jon Ciesla]

> On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 15:45 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> So, here's another one I wanted to get some opinions on.
>>
>> If, and when, like me, you are suicidal enough to have your servers run
>> Fedora, and for some foolish reason you decide to install zope/plone,
>> you will need python2.4 which is like from the Core era (or before,
>> dunno, don't care, looking forward, history is overrated).
>>
>> A lot of effort has been made towards building a python2.4 compat
>> package, so that those that really really needed it could at least grab
>> it from a repository where a bugzilla was attached and more of that
>> "collaborative" and "upstream".
>>
>> It has worked well... in fact, it has worked very very well. However,
>> the compat-python2.4 package was not accepted for inclusion in Fedora,
>> for various reasons I cannot recall right now. Seemingly endless threads
>> on the -devel list is about all I remember.
>>
>> The point of this message being; How do the other members of the Server
>> SIG rate the importance of compat-/legacy tools and utilities being
>> available in Fedora (rather then in the more-then-insignificant
>> third-party-repository we all know about but do not dare mention)?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jeroen van Meeuwen
>> -kanarip
>
> Well, I am beginning to see the 3rd-party repos (such as ***$$$$$$.%%%)
> as almost necessary to get things done, but I also understand the need
> for Fedora's very nitpicky (see, it's not just you!) need for very
> clearly free (and patent-free) software inclusion policy.  It avoids so
> many legal hassles, and it spurs ingenuity for free software
> alternatives, ideally.
>
> Having said that, I think the reason why this compat package wasn't
> included is somewhat important (as in, I'd like to know).  Plone/Zope,
> though not my preference, is definitely a major package to not include,
> so the reason had better be good, especially if you have experience with
> such a compat package working in a production environment.
>
> Now, I also have a concern - why is it crazy to run Fedora as a server
> right now?  I'm doing it (for just over a month), and I've had nothing
> but excellent service due to the great updated software online.
> Granted, maybe I'm not running Google on my servers, but still, for
> server components, is Fedora really so unstable?  We all (or most of us,
> anyway), run Fedora at home and develop on it with few problems, right?

Good point.  I've been doing it since RH9, with one bare-metal reinstall
for one box at FC1->FC2.  Mostly yum upgrades.

> I think one of the goals for the SIG should include removing the
> conception people have that Fedora isn't stable (unless you compare it
> to something like Debian).  If this attitude continues, then people that
> package & work on Fedora will not work towards ensuring we have
> bleeding-edge yet stable software.  I don't see a contradiction between
> running the latest *stable* release of a package (e.g., Apache HTTP
> server or PHP) and running a *stable* server.  Yes, there are degrees,
> but I think Fedora falls into a broader term of stable for most needs.
>
> This will really help, also, to get Fedora used in production
> more-and-more.  Why is Ubuntu getting all the attention?  They run
> practically the same packages as Fedora, but they are considered more
> "stable".  Yes, they long-term releases as well, but then that gives an
> impression of stability to the whole brand.  I think Fedora can use some
> stable branding as well, even if we EOL after two releases.  I just want
> to run a great distro on production like I do on my PCs & laptop!
>
> Okay, I'm done.  Weren't we talking about python?
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-server-list mailing list
> fedora-server-list at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-server-list
>


-- 
in your fear, speak only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie