On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> This isn't aimed at you personally, but the reason people like
>> RHEL/CentOS is that the 'no known bugs' status of a developer's
>> software release often turns pretty quickly into 'bugs with no known
>> fix' when they hit a wider distribution. And developers like to
>> change things in ways that break existing interfaces in what they
>> think are improvements.
>
> The Linux kernel and Linux distros are known for breaking things by e.g.
> changing interfaces.
Yes, that is true in general. RHEL (and thus CentOS) are known for
_not_ changing interfaces within the supported life of each major
release version. It is extremely rare for any previously working
program to be broken by an OS update over that many-year span. And
that is a good thing - and why they are popular.
> Cdrtools are known for stability and backwardscompatibility while at the same
> time enhancing functionality.
That stops a little short of saying they would be fully compatible
with any previous invocation or library linkage.
> I am talking about obvious bugs that apply to the redhat version but not to the
> original code. I am talking about closing unfixed bugs instead of upgrading to
> newer versions. I am talking abut redhat that is not doing it's homeworks.
Part of the story must be missing here - why does a broken version
exist in the first place and why would RedHat have picked it?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
