Re: livecds in the future
Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 11/24/2009 02:21 AM, Ben Williams wrote: If release engineering would like to release liveusb.iso for people to use to install or just to look at the new features, that is fine But from the #fedora channel the # of people installing off of the livecd images are very high (if you want to search the logs i am sure they can be provided, and yes the # installing useing the livecd.iso on usb is high as well.) Have you done a survey asking if a 1 GB Live image won't satisfy their needs? To reverse the question - has there been any solicitation of feedback about how many people would be adversely affected by this change? This is the first I'd heard of it. I appreciate the desire to put more content on the default desktop spin and think it would be a good thing to be able to include this sort of material, but please be aware that this will adversely affect a number of users (actual or potential) of fedora (and no I can't tell you how many). To give you a couple of scenarios for uses this will affect: 1) Plenty of hardware being used today doesn't support booting from USB and doesn't have a DVD drive. I've seen many of these machines turned over to using linux after grinding to a halt running other OSs. 2) Plenty of people don't have a network conection or bandwidth cap which would allow them to do a live install. Even my ADSL connection in the UK wouldn't be able to do this. Anyone with a combination of problems 1 and 2 is now unable to easily install F13+. Before discarding the idea of CD images all together would it not be worth finding out how many users this might affect? The other problem I would have is that I give away plenty of CDs. They're dirt cheap and it's easy to have a few lying around to distribute when necessary. I'm not about to start giving away USB keys instead. On a larger scale I've been involved with Software Freedom Day where we distribute hundreds of CDs of free software. We couldn't afford to move to DVDs (because of cost, time to burn and coverage of hardware) so Fedora would have to be removed from the list of discs our group distributed. I'm all for having the USB image as well, but if there's any way to keep a live CD then some of us would really appreciate it. Thanks for listening Simon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
Alexander Boström wrote: Den 2009-06-25 13:07, Simon Andrews skrev: If all anaconda upgrades are going to be online Anaconda upgrades initiated through Preupgrade do not require a network connection. They will if one of the conditions for upgrading is going to be access to the updates repository. Simon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
Kevin Kofler wrote: Simon Andrews wrote: I don't see the problem with forcing the use of these packages during an upgrade regardless of what versions were on the original system. You'd be left with a functional system Not really. Things like KDE config files processed by kconf_update, Firefox profiles, Amarok databases etc. will have been converted to the format expected by the new version, downgrading is not supported by upstream and the old version may thus not work or lose some settings. Surely these aren't the kind of updates which should be applied within a release cycle anyway? A new release is the time you'd expect to get a major revision of this sort. So, just to be clear here. Anyone who either has no network connection or whose network connection is too slow to support downloading potentially hundreds of megs up updates isn't going to be able to upgrade any more? Fedora effectively requires a fast network connection for the regular updates anyway. Really? I've installed Fedora for several people who don't have a decent network connection and have taken updates on a USB stick at intervals. I'm sure there's plenty of the world where install disks are passed round. Even where you do have a fast network connection there can still be problems: 1) All of our servers have to access the internet via a proxy. At least within the Anaconda UI there doesn't appear to be any support for configuring proxies so I'm forced into kickstart / shells / extra boot options to upgrade? 2) At home I have a cap on how much I can download except for an unlimited window overnight (midnight - 6am I think). Do I now have to wait up to upgrade my machines rather than doing the initial upgrade from media and then picking up updates automatically the next night? Making a media based upgrade unsupported is going to be a pain for an awful lot of people. Simon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
Kevin Kofler wrote: this time the DVD has become completely useless for upgrades, unless you like having to fetch an updated yum by hand (which, if you are a KDE user, you have to do from runlevel 3 because KDE (including KDM) is also broken after the upgrade for basically the same reason yum is - good luck with the command-line ftp! Actually there is a slightly simpler fix which is: su - export PYTHONPATH=/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages yum update yum -y There was also a proposed update for F10 which (I think) altered the python path so the upgrade was not broken (the F10 yum was still present but was functional), but this didn't make it beyond Koji. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506685 This is still a bad situation to end up in, but it could have been worse! Simon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
