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

[Jarod Wilson]

On Monday 16 May 2005 07:46, Fedor Pikus wrote:
> From what I see around me, there are two major "stable" versions of RH
> still around long after official EOL: many servers still run 7.3

Yup, I think I have at least 80 such boxes at work.

> many people stopped their desktops at FC1 (FC2 was a disaster, and
> early FC3 was not much better, and that was enough to make many people
> swear off upgrading).

Hm, I've been running FC3 since a few days before it was released without a 
problem... Granted, udev has been a bit of a hassle, but I never thought it 
(or FC2) was even close to a disaster. Just dist-upgraded my box at work to 
FC4-t3 on Friday... FC4, even in the test stages, has been excellent, if you 
ask me.

> Now, 7.3, being primarily server installation, can probably be removed
> from ATRPMs, these machines only really need security fixes anyway.

I agree, these machines really only need Fedora Legacy, RH73 isn't exactly a 
great multimedia platform.

> But FC1, with its claim to be the "last working RH distibution",
> should not be so easilly dismissed.

What I'm getting is that there may be significant enough traction to continue 
maintaining support for FC1 for a while... :-)

Anyone have anything to say in favor of continuing to support FC2 as well? 
Also, I should add that I don't mean to say support should be dropped 
immediately for any distro we decide to stop supporting.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20050516/93d977ea/attachment.bin