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. ---- you are certainly entitled to your opinions but it is obvious that this opinion isn't shared by others. The entire point of Fedora is quick release and short life cycles so a respin of any particular Fedora release is a rather pointless exercise. There is of course, nothing to prevent a user or fedora-legacy from doing exactly that but I am quite certain that aren't ever gonna see that in a Fedora core release. As for 'missing the early pre-RHL 9 days' - I believe that the current setup of Fedora / RHEL is much more logical in that Fedora is a testing platform and the RHEL is the stable platform - and RHEL iso's are indeed 're-spun'. Thus your complaints seem to be self involved. Lastly, and this is just an impression. I find it to be a repeated theme in your posts - that you have no hesitation to suggest that others go to great lengths to solve what appear to be gaps of the way things should be according to Les and I cannot see why you aren't involved in fedora- development list and making things happen. It seems all too easy to sit back and critique. At least please recognize that this isn't the forum for accomplishing changes to the methodology and content of the Fedora core releases. Craig
