[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sheflug] Re: redhat 9.0



On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 21:00, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 20:45, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote:

> I don't think that's actually true. Fedora will rev at much the same
> rate as the previous edition of Red Hat, and they do say they will
> provide timely updates. It's actually easier to apply a patch than
> provide a complete update - your example of backporting is slightly
> bogus; most projects offer a stable/development dual track approach, and
> provide patches for the stable branch themselves. It's quite rare that a
> security fix requires a backport - I don't expect Fedora to package
> non-release code.
> 

I wasn't suggesting that unstable code would be shipped... 

Apache in Shrike is still at 2.0.40 with patches backported from newer
versions of Apache. 

In Fedora there is a possibility that if there is a patch required that
the new version will be shipped. The practice with RH was certainly to
backport patches. There is less emphasis on keeping a stable environment
as previously was the case- so if RH 9 had been Fedora it may already be
at 2.0.45 or later via updates.

> > For anyone not scared of testing updated first, and not scared to go off
> > and recompile if RH's updates break everything then Fedora isn't really
> > a real problem.
> 
> That's probably not quite a fair reflection of the situation.
> 

If RH had thrown 2.0.47 out instead of backporting fixes then there
would be some breakage in some web-based applications. So if fedora
ships initially with Apache 2.0.40 and 2.0.47 breaks users applications-
it's the users problem to test updates in a non-production environment
first- and recompile the original SRPM with patches if the new update
does break things.

With RedHat Linux it was more a case of trusting that RedHat updates
wouldn't break too many things afterwards- with Fedora this promised
-- 
Regards,
Adam Allen.

adam [at] dynamicinteraction.co.uk
pgp http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=adam%40dynamicinteraction.co.uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part