Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Jim Perrin]

On 11/01/2013 01:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:50 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/01/2013 02:48 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 14:30:38 -0400, Stephen Gallagher
>>> <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So yes, that sounds ambitious, but what do you think of the
>>>> idea?
>>>
>>> Is Fedora Server going to have its own package repository? If not
>>> it looks like there will be conflict with people who want to
>>> update packages in Fedora between releases that we wouldn't want to
>>> update for the server product.
>>
>> Yes, the same way that Fedora 19 and Fedora 20 have different
>> repositories. It's nothing new.

This is quite a bit different, in that it's not tracking a fedora
release. This would potentially mean "yet another" target for builders
and 3rd party repos to support. I would much rather track the current
fedora releases with better packaging, usability etc than spawn an
entirely new structure.

If we start down this path with each working group, we risk fragmenting
the distro's userbase.

> The difference is that now you either loose access to the other products
> components or you need to install old packages.
> 
> Ie in Fedora Server 1.0 you will have to install packages built for
> Fedora 21, however if the product that produces them stays on a short
> release cycle, by the time we go 1.0 there not even security updates
> anymore for them. So what do we do ? We force other products to do
> security updates for 24 months ?

This was tried already with the fedora legacy wasn't it? Did that die
off from lack of interest or lack of resources?




-- 
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77