KDE 4.9 F16?

[mike cloaked]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny at redhat.com> wrote:

> have you noticed those three characters ":-)" just after the
> sentence?

Yes I did see the smiley but it was a baiting comment.

> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy
>
> Releases of the Fedora distribution are like releases of the
> individual packages that compose it. A major version number
> reflects a more-or-less stable set of features and functionality.
> As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a
> stable release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce
> features, particularly when those features would materially
> affect the user or developer experience. The update rate for any
> given release should drop off over time, approaching zero near
> release end-of-life; since updates are primarily bugfixes, fewer

I am aware of this policy - but in a very literal sense it "is" a
shame that for a Fedora version that is not much more than 6 months
old the update rate falls off so much due to this policy - though the
kernel devs should be congratulated to keeping things pretty close to
the release version even for, in this case, F16. Currently F16 has the
same kernel as arch does in its [core] repo. 3.5 will soon be moving
to core in arch but F16 I suspect will not be moved to 3.5 at all I
guess.

> 1) I've never needed to do a reinstall of Fedora machine - the
> yum path has worked for me always, with one exception being the
> usrmove which I had to fix manually ... YMMV

OK you are lucky - I was certainly not that lucky around the Fedora 10
timeframe. Maybe the yum upgrade path is now a whole lot better. Those
who have used it are more competent to comment on that than me.

> 3) I really doubt if your work reinstalling the machines
> justifies calling a shame the fact that the developers don't do
> their additional work in upgrading the released distros (in fact,
> I doubt this update should go even to F17(*)) and pushing the
> change also on other people who think that having to cope with a
> new version of software on their machine is a pretty tedious
> business

Yes it was a workload decision by the devs - as I said that is fine -
anyone who is happy with that can continue to work within the
constraint of a new system every 6 months either by re-install or yum
upgrade if they are happy with it. I am no longer happy with it and I
am not making any attempt to complain about it - I am moving on.


> good for you - but then I really don't understand why would you
> like Fedora to be just like Arch when you can (and do) install
> Arch itself?

As I said I am moving machines slowly over but I can do them all at
once so some remain with F16 for the moment - and whilst they are
running F16 it would have been nice to have the same version of KDE as
I already have on those (smaller numbers of) machines which are
running arch. So I just asked the simple question!

> yep, I'm sad to see people leaving Fedora, but then the question
> is what to do better to motivate the people to stay - but if it
> is such feature then I doubt if we should change ... where would
> be the freedom then if all the distros would use the rolling
> updates model, where would go those who dislike Arch?

Some may not be happy with arch either then they can choose whichever
distro they like instead. Maybe some move from Arch to Fedora - maybe
they go to Ubuntu - maybe they go to BSD Gentoo or any of the other
available options - there is a choice.

> but I'm no native English speaker so I may have gotten things
> wrong

Your English seems just as good if not better than mine and I am
native English speaker - it is just a matter of individual viewpoint
as to what is a simple question! Maybe I should have just said it was
an "innocent" question - all I did was ask and had a reply from the
maintainer - that should have been enough.

Now it is time to move on I think.

-- 
mike c