On 8/9/19 1:47 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:08 AM -0400 David Magda dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca wrote: I.e., 'providing' a build of OpenLDAP has a number of complexities.
Full ack.
It's really hard to decide what is needed in a package.
Linux distributions tend to enable all features to please everybody. But for highly secured systems it is mandatory to disable unneeded functionality. E.g. I'm maintaining the full-featured builds for openSUSE but personally I'm using stripped down builds without all deprecated backends.
Also Linux distros implement pseudo config management in there packages which trys to create a default config. Mostly this defeats serious deployments using a decent config management. I saw production systems break after a "yum update" or "apt-get upgrade" because of overzealous package post installation tasks.
2015 had a lot of serious bugs in its release, the releases were rushed, and the result of rushing was bad. I don't think 2015 is a "good" example of how things should be done.
That is an argument for timed releases.
I fail to see how that's the case.
Me too. Especially because timed releases can also lead to some kind of rush before the release date.
What I see is that we need to: a) Ensure we have CI/CD and b) Better/expanded test cases & databases to validate against and c) more participation from the community in testing/validating new features and code fixes.
Again, full ack here.
Ciao, Michael.