synchronising with Redhat

[Donovan Rebbechi <elflord@pegasus.rutgers.edu>]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> I suppose the other issue is the bigger one, though -- do we expect Redhat
> to finish their release (6.0?) on time, and do we expect it to be different
> enough that we can't just tell them to plug in the new rpms?

Aren't they going to jump to glibc 2.1 ? 

Is there any reason why we should sync with Redhat ? their major releases
are hardly known for quality control. Being on the bleeding edge is nice
, but seems somewhat contrary to our goals. Being a little bit behind the
bleeding edge is smart. I remember all of those dissatisfied RH5 customers
on the groups, many of whom became satisfied SuSE customers.

A year or so ago, enough of the standard packages would change
so significantly in a short space of time to make each new release worth
having. However, a lot of software has stabilised and for many new users,
the case for being on the bleeding edge seems much weaker. 

I'd suggest that if Redhat include some new packages ( such as GNOME ) ,
we ship them, but build them against our current system, and wait for a
stable ( ie x.1 ) release of RH 

My preference would be to release after the first month or so of errata
become available. Redhats major releases are beta quality at best, and we
don't want to give our users a hastily packaged distro.