David-Paul Niner wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 12:58 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 00:25 -0700, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
Seems that whomever released this distro should throw away
the iso cds and create a BRAND NEW ONE. This distro is very
very very hosed and buggy.
Why isn't this done by Fedora? (Not outsiders that we don't know
whether we can trust.)
----
The answer has been pretty clear on this - the release cycle is so
short, that it doesn't pay to spend the energy rebuilding the current
release because by that time, they are busy doing the builds for the
test releases for the next series.
----
Why not automate the packages to be the latest? Isn't this what
computers are supposed to be good at? How hard would it be to make a
bi-weekly package. Release the packages as FCx.yymmdd The ISO's
would just be created from the current packages. The date code
provides users to know the date of the image.
I assume you mean bi-weekly respins and a subsequent set of new isos?
How long would each iso set stay in circulation? A month? Two months?
A year?
While I agree that it should be (relatively) easy to design and
implement such a process, managing the resultant "sub-release" sets
could easily become a nightmare.
Just my opinion,
David-Paul Niner
I don't see any problem with managing these sets. In two weeks, the
set is defunct and dropped. If anyone has a copy from a month ago,
all they need to do is "yum update all" to be the same as the current
set. The only difference is the individual packages within the set.
The iso would only need to be replaced. The way I look at it is that
using the ftp idea, you could download FC_current which would be a
link to the latest package. It is not a version change but a
packaging of all the latest updates to the base package. The date is
just to indicate the date of creation of the set.
As my daughter commented about me leaving the new laptop on over
night. I left it on to download all the updates on a new install.
--
Robin Laing
