Bug 140142 - create stable rolling rawhide-style repo
create stable rolling rawhide-style repo
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: distribution (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bill Nottingham
Bill Nottingham
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-11-19 23:52 EST by Phil Schaffner
Modified: 2014-03-16 22:50 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-11-21 23:46:20 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Phil Schaffner 2004-11-19 23:52:32 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3)
Gecko/20041020

Description of problem:
Create a rawhide-style rolling repo, but with stable/tested packages
that could be used for either anaconda installs/updates, or yum
updates.  Would save user download/install/update time and network
bandwidth.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Do network or ISO install
2. Do updates
3.
    

Actual Results:  Inefficient process.

Expected Results:  Single install/update process that gives latest
stable packages.


Additional info:

Thanks to David Fletcher for stimulating the thought.
Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2004-11-21 23:46:20 EST
A rolling release w/ISOs would eat up a lot of bandwidth and disk
space, aside from the release engineering and testing efforts involved.
Comment 2 Phil Schaffner 2004-11-22 12:38:05 EST
Thought the extra effort might be problematic, but just to be clear,
was not suggesting new ISOs.  Know that doing more regular ISO respins
has already been discussed and rejected.  Figured the same process
used for rawhide/development updates would work here, just limiting it
to stable packages.
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2004-11-22 12:41:51 EST
The main concern I have is that none of the packages are tested in an
install environment, and there wouldn't be any automatic testing of
such trees.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.