Patches accepted Chris On Oct 7, 2012 12:08 PM, "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moving this to devel rather than users (apologies if anyone feels this > should remain in general circulation.) > > At 05:41 PM 10/6/2012 +0800, Mark Tompsett wrote: > [snip] > >> If it installs easily to a hard drive and let's them have a >> packages-based, ... >> > > Mark - could you please explain your fixation with "packages-based"? (by > which I *think* you mean .deb files -- please correct me if I'm mistaken.) > I've been using "packages" for fifty years; they used to come in the post > -- a cardboard box of punched cards -- then [t]ape [ar]chives hence 'tar' > -- then standardized in the 1980s by IEEE/POSIX. They permit good > transmission, particularly with modern compression and checksum techniques, > of directory structure, permissions, linking, etc. They're usable in all > *nix environments, not just the Debian family, but RHEL, AIX, Solaris, > SuSE, BSD ... (even my old favourite Slackware.) > > A .tar is somewhat universal; .deb, .rpm, are o/s specific. Why limit the > scope? Why not concentrate on the best possible quality of an ubiquitous > .tar? > > that is a good thing for non-technical people with a production >> environment. >> > > Please, how many "production environments" are run by "non-technical > people"? (or at least without access to "technical" people?) Is Koha > destined for amateurs only? Even my local, rural, very small, public > library uses the municipal IT department personnel (they're on SirsiDynix.) > > [snip] > >> Chris Cormack wrote: >> >>> Doing 2 LiveCD releases every month is a reasonable amount >>> of work so I applaud them for wanting to. >>> >> >> I agree monthly would be perfect, but even every 6 months (in line with >> the new releases 3.10.0, 3.12.0, etc.) would be sufficient (not perfect, >> but sufficient). >> > > Recognizing that I'm wandering from "live CDs", a Koha LTS should be the > goal -- with security updates -- for a two year cycle in a production > environment. I, and colleagues from other libraries, don't have policy, > budgets or the inclination to play "new releases" every month, probably not > even every six months; that's OK for video games, but not when your IT > department is responsible for records in the hundreds of thousands (or many > millions via Z39.xx standards.) > > On the other hand, enhancements are a marvelous idea, leading up to a > "next LTS", and those of us who have time and the facilities should be > encouraged. Such releases can be labeled "latest|whatever", but not > "stable." > > [snip] > >> Though, current and previous stable releases on a monthly basis are >> probably best. Hopefully this clarifies everything from my perspective. :) >> > > My knowledge of upgrade 3.6.x. to 3.8.x (12 month period) is a testament > as to why an LTS, with more complete QA (or at least full documentation) > should be on Koha's horizon (and to pre-empt comments concerning why I > should search git and bugs and wiki and INSTALL (all variants deb, ubuntu, > bland) and community and devel and users and download and ... I'm sure you > understand.) > > Thanks and best regards - Paul >
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
