New Fedora test lead begins work (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 20, 2006 4:43 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

... stable platform for development on bleeding-edge versions of tools e.g. gcc, GTK+, and GNOME

Which by definition are often not that stable. That nitpick aside, new versions of Fedora get released a little too frequently for something that is officially "not beta for RHEL". Perhaps the releases should be based on considerable advances in functionality. As a corollary, the relatively small changes between FC5 and FC6-candidates might be better served as updates to FC5.

Have you looked at Fedora development lately? The freeze for Fedora 6 test 2 slipped recently because of large changes. An almost full rebuild is afoot right now, because of gcc and binutils changes.

The whole idea of Fedora is bleeding edge, that is a bit hard to be if you don't have a short development cycle. But then again, Fedora is not everybody's ideal, and luckily there are plenty of distributions from which to choose.

Posted Jul 20, 2006 7:07 UTC (Thu) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link]

I'll second that. I can see no way that FC6 could have been an upgrade for FC5, if for no other reason than FC5 hosts Xorg 7.0 and FC6 hosts 7.1. nVidia and ATI proprietary drivers work (mostly) with 7.0, but not yet with 7.1, so its pretty impossible to include 7.1 as a "simple" update to FC5.

Yeah, I know: proprietary drivers aren't exactly Fedora's problem. But satisfied customers are.

Also, FC6 is shooting for GNOME 2.16, which has some pretty big changes in itself.

Posted Jul 20, 2006 22:28 UTC (Thu) by thebluesgnr (guest, #37963) [Link]

<i> "... stable platform for development on bleeding-edge versions of tools e.g. gcc, GTK+, and GNOME"

Which by definition are often not that stable. </i>

Red Hat Linux has always been like that. Do you remember gcc 2.96?