On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 11:12 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. But Les, how long does a Fedora release last? We're talking at most a ten month window here, where you and I are upgrading to the next release every four to six months. After the ten months, if the Fedora Legacy Project wants to roll a new ISO, that would be up to that project, but I don't think that's the point of the Fedora Project itself. The goals for this project are different than they were for the RHL product. Most of us in the Fedora Community are here for one of two reasons: 1) Bleeding edge of the Red Hat world 2) Free beer Those from the "free beer" camp have to remember that this is not a "product" and while FC has been extremely "stable" for my uses, I do not "rely" on that "stability".... The point is, to roll a new set of ISO's is not just about running a script to create the ISO, it is also about testing it out. This is what the three Test releases are geared to. By the time the version is "released", "most" of the kinks have been worked out. Once in a while, something is broken that is more widespread, but that goes with the territory. Frankly, my participation is more to be on the bleeding edge, and I would much rather see the developers focusing on fixing things and rolling the next release than back-peddling for the "believing it's a product" folks. Fortunately my perception seems to match that of the "powers-that-be". Now having said all that, there is nothing to preclude some "community volunteers" from stepping up to the plate and rolling these new ISO's and perhaps campaigning to have them housed on one of the wonderful community repositories out there. But, for my lack of money, I want the developers to keep looking forward... --Rob
