Re: Please do not delete rpms for EOL distributions

Axel Thimm <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.redhat.rpm.atrpms.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Roberto,

I understand your situation, and a solution could had been to move the
packages to a place where users are aware of that they use software on
an expired platform.

The issue here is also space. I had been packaging since
RH6.something, this means that there are about 20 EOL'd releases that
could be on this archived space. ATM ATrpms supports 6-7 releases,
that would mean using 3 times as much space for EOL'd distributions
than for the live ones. One would argue that one doesn't need them
all, you would say F14 is enough, I know people that use F12 and
someone would like to have F6, so the line to draw would be blurry.

I keep EOL'd stuff several month on the master server to allow for
users to either switch to a newer release or make a copy.

Also if updating Fedora every 12 months is not fitting your schedule,
then you are probably a candidate for Enterprise distros anyway. :)

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:35:09PM +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> Hi Axel,
> 
> I just got a yum error as atrpms for f14-x86_64 are not available
> anymore.
> While googling around, I found your yesterday's post where
> you said to someone else that old rpms are deleted shortly after
> the EOL of the distribution.
> 
> There are cases in which old files are needed, please try to keep
> them around, maybe with all the "please upgrade" warnings you want,
> but do not delete them.
> 
> I've spent some time to find a stale mirror which has not deleted them
> yet, and I'm now mirroring everything from them (and it is a really
> slow site...).
> 
> In case you are wondering, what I'm doing is cross-grading a i686
> fedora 14 to x86_64 (I know, this is unsupported, but I'm doing it
> anyway), so I can then upgrade to f15/f16 on a normal x86_64 path.
> My target is to switch mostly everything to x86_64, so I need
> x86_64 rpms for every atrpms i686 I currently have. Without them, many
> i686 libs are stuck because of dependencies and the process becomes more
> complicated than it is already.
> 
> I would be glad if you could take my suggestion in consideration
> for future releases.
> Thank you.
> 
> -- 
>    Roberto Ragusa    mail at robertoragusa.it
> 

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.