From: "James Kosin" <jkosin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 00:39, John Summerfied wrote:
Whether the policy is the same as always is not the point. The point is
that it's silly. It forces users to make untimely choices (such as go to
a beta release) or to make needless choices and do needless work (such
as reconfigure their updating software or install a soon-to-retire
release) or to make unsafe choices (such as to use unmaintained software).
The simple fix for this would be for either the final FC3 update
to install a yum repository change so subsequent updates
would continue to come in from the legacy repo or just let
the legacy team take over maintenance of the existing repository
location - or make the existing repo mirror the legacy one.
Failing to do this is going to leave a huge number of machines
vulnerable to future security problems even if they had been
set up to do automatic updates. That's not a good thing for
a distribution's reputation. Letting the Fedora team change
focus as planned makes sense. Forcing all users to make a
manual configuration change in something that was supposed
to help them avoid manual work doesn't make sense.
Maybe, posting an update to Yum that changes the configuration to
automatically point to the fedora-legacy servers would be a better idea.
When they get the error messages about not being able to connect to the
server they will definitely complain about the problem and then they
could also be informed of the change and make the appropriate changes
themselves.
Just my 2-cents,
James Kosin
That does sound like a quite workable solution, particularly if it's
for people in John's situation. (I plan to watch the pain people go
through updating from 4 to 5 for a couple months. Then if it seems
feasible make the update. So it "might not" affect me.)
{^_^}
