Fedora 24 Beta & Final Hit By Another Delay

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Fedora 24 Beta & Final Hit By Another Delay

Jan Kurik has passed along word that the Fedora 24 Beta has been delayed and thus the final milestones are also pushed back...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-24-Beta-Final-Delay

[AdamW]

Quick note on this one: after the Alpha slip we did not adjust the Beta schedule as we usually would - we kept Beta on its original schedule even though Alpha was 'late' - so we're actually still only one week behind at this point.

If anyone's interested, there was a config error when building the compose we hoped to test and ship, so the live images had 'Alpha' in their filenames. By the time we re-did the compose it was too late to complete testing. We also discovered an odd bug which prevents the Server DVD image from booting when dd'ed to a USB stick, which we're looking into now: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331317

[Klassic Six]

I hope the final stable version release before July.

[pipe13]

Thanks Adam. I'm usually not in a rush over betas, but in this case I'm looking for the improved OpenACC support in gcc 6.1. But if I really need gcc 6 that soon I can do a /usr/local install on fc23. But having it as system compiler avoids some ld.so configuration stuff.

[pal666]

in this case I'm looking for the improved OpenACC support in gcc 6.1. But if I really need gcc 6 that soon I can do a /usr/local install on fc23. But having it as system compiler avoids some ld.so configuration stuff.

dnf --releasever 24 --best --allowerasing install gcc-c++
you are welcome

[AdamW]

Please don't do that, that's an awful idea.

pipe13 you can grab a Beta 1.2 image if you like, they're perfectly fine really, except for the Server dd-to-USB problem. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_...2_Installation has download links.

[pal666]

no more awful than using full prerelese

[pipe13]

Thanks Adam and Pal666! But Pal? Replacing the system compiler on a fully functional installed production system, if not truly awful, does rather leave me with night sweats and cold feet. I agree dnf is now approaching the slippery side of slick. One of my favorites is "dnf list > dnflist", edit dnflist to remove stuff you don't want in a fresh install, then "cat dnflist | cut -f1 -d' > newrpmlist" Then edit newrpmlist down to just the package names and use it after a fresh install on a spare partition to pick up your favorite toys. e.g. dnf install < newrpmlist. Not quite as convenient as dnf-system-upgrade -- but I'd never run *that* except to a GA release which has been out at least a week. I've plenty unused root partitions kicking around for just this exigency.

[AdamW]

no more awful than using full prerelese

Sorry, but it is, it's far worse. We test releases as cohesive units. We test Fedora 23, and Fedora 24. We do not test bits of Fedora 24 pulled back to Fedora 23, we explicitly tell you *not* to do that. Package maintainers do not consider that case in building packages or test it or care *at all* if it breaks. Especially with something as core as GCC, installing an F24 build on F23 is likely going to pull in all kinds of other F24 stuff, none of which will have been tested at all in an F23 environment and is *highly* likely to break stuff.

DIstro repos aren't just 'package sources', they're coherent wholes that are built and tested together. You can't just mix and match.

[pal666]

We do not test bits of Fedora 24 pulled back to Fedora 23

sure, but all of f23 is tested and stable, one f24 compiler will not magically break it. worst thing compiler will not work an you will downgrade it. while all of f24 is not even beta yet. much better to have tested distro with untested compiler than untested distro with untested compiler. i am telling this as someone who has experience in both installing fedora prereleases and installing only new compiler