Fedora 10 for 9.1.0?
katzj at redhat.com
Tue Oct 14 20:32:01 EDT 2008
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 12:06 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Yeah - the Fedora lifecycle does not end up being a good fit for us.
> There is no clear (supported) path to go from a Fedora ("bleeding
> edge") release to a LTS path with RHEL or CentOS.
> Is there any hints as to how that could be improved? Understanding how
> RH picks where to base RHEL would be a start...
RHEL is based off of the Fedora release which is most fitting for the
desired RHEL schedule. Which makes it a bit of a black art and not
entirely replicable. Past RHEL releases...
RHEL 2.1 - based on Red Hat Linux 7.2
RHEL 3 -- based on something between Red Hat Linux 9 and what became FC1
RHEL 4 -- based on Fedora Core 3
RHEL 5 -- based on Fedora Core 6
The only real "hint" I have is that it's a sliding scale of which is
more important -- having distro support for an extended period of time
or having the most recent stuff. OLPC to this point, as Walter alludes,
has definitely leaned more towards the latter. It's possible, perhaps
even likely, that this will start to skew towards the former as OLPC
matures as a platform. I think that this would be a great topic for
some more in-depth discussion at the planning meeting previously
> On one hand we need the latest freshest code as we're driving quite a
> few changes in the stack -- but we also need LTS.
The problem comes in that even if Fedora _were_ to pick "hey, let's take
Fedora n and choose it for longer term", it would only help a subset of
the people. And the cost in doing so would end up negatively impacting
the quickness with which we do other things.
In addition, the update policies within Fedora (rebase early, rebase
often? :) don't really mesh well with the needs of someone really
looking at any sort of long-term support from my experience
But, that's a flamewar which is ongoing on another list and which I
stayed out of there, so I'm going to let it go after this here too :-)
More information about the Devel