On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:16:42AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:10 AM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > 2. there are missing desktop packages, which means we are taking on > > maintenance of those packages on CentOS, > > Having tried and failed to do this back when EL6 was new I believe > this is a dead end. It turned out to be _WAY_ more effort than > actually keeping Fedora up to date. The upstream RHEL releases are > every 6 months but if you need a fix for a package in the core 2500 > odd packages and it's not easy you might be waiting a lot longer for a > fix. > > In Fedora if you know the right people (like me) you can get a fix > into update-testing in a day. Also there's a much much wider QA group > across the packages we use and care about.
I'm sure core people get it, but I think it's hard to over-emphasize to everyone else that there are two places where you get the most bang for your buck: 1) you stay with the latest (Fedora); or 2) you *never* change anything, ever. Everything in-between seems like it might be a better tradeoff, but really all that's happening is you're giving your paid devops staff time to work around their holidays and internally-driven priorities. Have no paid devops staff or worldwide priority list? You need to be on Fedora or *never* ever change. SugarLabs being in that place, with people like you to take forward Sugar packages on the popular, RHEL-upstream (in practice) Fedora, there is no good reason to accept a slower security fix process and a much more time-expensive release process. > And I've been trying as hard with Fedora as possible. The core Sugar > stack is in pretty good shape. There's some work needed on some > Activies but most of the work it to update them to the latest upstream > bits. This rings true to me too. > Peter Martin
pgpcQEexWcdMq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel