On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 02:26, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > Interesting... I always install from the k12ltsp distribution instead > > of a straight fedora because it is usually rebuilt with current updates. > > And I think that's a one man show. I always assumed the iso build was > > scripted. > > I think the build itself is scriptable, it's the testing that isn't. Testing? We are talking about fedora, aren't we? There is a reason for the massive number of updates after the releases. Don't take this as a complaint. It's only realistic to expect the massive real-world exposure of a release to shake out problems that wouldn't be found any other way regardless. I just miss the early (<9) RH days when everyone knew not to install releases before X.2 on critical machines and a new iso would be cut at that point. While it is unrealistic and probably not even desirable to expect fedora to be tested enough to eliminate the need for updates, it doesn't seem so unreasonable to ask someone who follows the bug reports and update process closely to make a call as to when the worst issues have been fixed (like the X.2 version always was...) and roll a new iso so people installing after that point don't have to deal with the problems. This makes sense especially for cases where kernel and installer updates have been made to fix issues with certain hardware. -- Les Mikesell les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
