on 10/28/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On 28/10/2007, Claude Jones <cjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun October 28 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> No it's not. You're on your mount. Your "my way or the highway" approach is >> prototypical of what's been going on on this list for several months, now. >> >> Congratulations back to you for your unpleasant pedantry. > > Cast your fireball spells as much as you like. > > It is way too easy to point a finger at a Fedora user after an > accident and blame him for installing a bad update or for not > verifying whether an update set was safe to install. "You could have > avoided the disastrous results if you had entered NO instead of YES". > "You could have tried out the Test Update, which nobody has had > interest in for two weeks." Great! That is the same stance as of those > people who preach of backups, because the next distribution upgrade > might do the completely unexpected and erase the /home partition's > contents, although the installer was never told to do that. > > Fedora 7 is supposed to be a stable branch of the distribution. > Fedora's precious users ought to be protected from disastrous results > and should be given reason to trust *all* updates, especially the > security related ones. Unfortunate regression left aside, I don't like > it when some packagers play with fire and pipe out upgrades for Fedora > 6 and 7 that put it on par with the Fedora 8 development branch just > to offer new package builds. We have a series of test releases, even > freezes, but shortly after a gold release of the distribution, we > literally throw away all that and upgrade hundreds of packages to give > the users something fresh and less tested to play with? Stuff that > puts the user into a loop, in which to evaluate lots of updates every > week, trying to gain experience with cherry-picking instead of simply > applying or ignoring all updates? Version upgrades, changes in > .rpmsave/.rpmnew files, regression - for some packages we've had > almost daily updates from upstream source code repositories. > > I know testing is not easy. When upstream developers miss a problem, > package maintainers and co-maintainers don't spot it either, the built > update is made a Test Update without anyone reporting a problem [or > without anyone testing it], the single (y/n) confirmation prompt in > Yum is no silver bullet either. For instance, it won't help at all if > an RPM package post-install scriptlet runs wild on your file-system. > So, suggesting users to avoid yum's -y as the way to handle Fedora > Updates, is only going to scare users. Well lets see here. Say that there are 5 million Fedora users. And some have old laptops. Some newer laptops. Some brand new laptops. All, or mostly all different makes models and hardware. Now do the same logic for desktops. Now throw in the users that have added 'third party' software. Windows codecs. Video drivers, WiFi drivers. All sorts of 'not standard Fedora' supplied software. Joe Package-builder builds a newer version of something with improvements or bug fixes. Then tests it on his machine and then puts it in Updates-testing. Which few, if any, use. So it does not get tested very well. You install this package and it breaks some package/function your machine. Question? Why is that the exclusive fault of the person who supplied the package? Why did you not get involved before now? Or is it just easier to complain after the fact? -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
