> > Basically that says that upstream no longer thinks that Firefox is runnable > on RHEL-6/CentOS-6 anymore. I think there was a similar problem at the end > of EL-5 when a 'YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE' fix from Mozilla was released and > while a lot of work was done by Red Hat to get it to work on RHEL-5, some > items (and I really think it was sound and plugins) did not work. At the > tail end of a release, most 'desktop' concerns are very hard to figure out > as 10 year old software API's are rarely kept working by the various > 'upstreams'. > I want to be clear that I do understand this is causing major issues for > users. I think a lesson learned from EL-5 and EL-6 is that EL releases need > to be clearer on the difference between desktops and servers. There seems > to be a point where desktop utilities fixes are mainly going to be > 'reasonable effort' versus 'guaranteed' to be 100%... usually in the last 6 > months of a release. That way users can plan better that a certain amount > of work is going to be needed by them to continue it working. Upgrades for users would be a lot easier if the "upgrade" option on the install was more of an upgrade. I have seen the arguments on how Ubuntu upgrades leave unneeded packages littering the machine. However, at a minimum I would think an upgrade should keep /etc/hosts, /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow, /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, the list if repos in use. This would at least put the machine in a usable state from the get go. Saving a list of the applications which would not be reloaded as part of the upgrade would also be useful. It would at least make it possible to get a running start at rebuilding the users environment. My issues come from the conversion of CentOS 4 and 5 to 6. Maybe it is all better going to CentOS 8 (wishful thinking?) _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos