[ATrpms-devel] Increased update lead time, repo too large

[Gavin Hurlbut]

On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:51:38PM -0700, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > I'd like feedback on whether some distributions should finally face
> > nirvana. Not only for mythtv, but atrpms in general. I tend to want to
> > kill everything that RH has killed (EOLed). That would be RHL7.3 to 9
> > and FC1 and 2.
> 
> I vote to kill them all, and from here on out, keep the policy of only 
> supporting what Red Hat supports. ATrpms users wanting to stay on a 2.4 
> kernel have the option of EL3 now, EL4 if they want a long-term supported 2.6 
> option, and FC4 out the door shortly for the bleeding edge.

I have the exact opposite point of view here.  I have no desire to
upgrade working machines, and I have several FC1 boxes still.  If atrpms
stops supporting FC1, I will eventually be upgrading them...  To ubuntu.
I personally have no desire to use FC3 and FC4, the bloat factor in FC1
is killing me bad enough.

Expecting people to upgrade from FC1 to EL3 to keep support for 2.4
kernels is crazy in my mind.  Everything pre-FC1 likely could be turfed
though.

> There's just no compelling reason anymore that ATrpms should have put forth 
> the time and energy to support the EOL'd distros with the availability and 
> support of free EL3 and EL4 rebuilds. I'm sure there's a vocal minority that 
> would disagree, but its my take that the effort required for the EOL'd 
> distros actually hurts more people than it helps, due to repository breakage 
> and delays introduced by the build/upload/repogen time to support so many 
> distros.

You may have a point there.  However, expecting people to upgrade what
are essentially production machines is a very short-sighted view, and
will certainly lose Fedora more users.

> I'll do whatever I can to help.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, Jarod.  You likely
have a good handle on this though.

Anyways, off to a meeting.

Ciao
Gavin