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
_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
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
_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users