On Tue, 15 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:45:54 -0400
William Case <billlinux@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi;
Just jumping in.
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 12:31 -0400, Terry Zink wrote:
Another thing is that for the most part, the general consensus of Fedora by many people who don't know better but use Fedora is that Fedora is simply "beta" for Redhat.
That's a stigma it has to shake, which it sadly has.
I use Fedora because I like the thought that it is cutting edge, etc.
What I would like to know is: Are the contributions of users to fixing
Fedora picked up by other distributions and/or up the line for
applications?
The Fedora mantra is "Upstream" so yes as much as possible everything
gets pushed upstream to the master software project.
Reading the article I found one conclusion that was dead on.
When you do an upgrade, the upgrade goes fine, but you cannot update some
components after that point.
I am fighting that problem on a couple of machines.
What I am seeing happening is this...
After the upgrade, you have a situation where some packages have both the
old version and the new version of that package. It is not all packages,
just some. I don't know if this is because there are dependancies that
would break or some other condition. When you try and do an "yum update"
and you hit one of these "multiple version" packages, you get conflicts
that say "package X conflicts with package X".
This problem gets worse if you have a dual arch system like x86_64 and one
architecture has been dropped for that package. (It gets even more
confused.)
The only solution I have found for this is to fix them by hand when I find
them. This has been a problem for a long while, but yum seems to have
gotten more sensitive to the condition.
--
"ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..."
- Alan Cox
