On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 02:20:58 +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez <xose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do you mean RHEL? This is Fedora, and I don't like to have a perpetual > kernel in the distribucion as RHEL has. I was referring to the distribution which must not be named... RHL. > Mainly because upstream kernel > is moving _very_ fast(and stable) and in Fedora there is no enough > 'hacker power' to do backports of _all_ new features/fixes/... that > upstream brings. I understand things are moving faster in upstream kernel. At no point did i suggest that focusing on security backports like RHL did in the past was the right way to proceed. I was reinterpreting Arjan's comment about 'balance' to my benefit to suggest that we need something else to offset the damange done by feature creep. And that something else.. is effective use of the updates-testing repository to give people running a current release of FC2 a headsup about feature creep issues before a mustfix security issue forces a kernel to be released as an update. Arjan is right everything ...sadly... is case-by-case with regard to how package maintainers use updates-testing. Updates-testing is very ill-defined. And that is a good and bad thing. The kernel is a very sensitive package because of its close association with hardware issues, and I think that as upstream kernel development speeds up we are going to see feature creep breakage be a continual annoying problem with some hardware in updated kernels. So if we can't prevent it, my suggestion is.. keep updates-testing populated so community can keep a faq document detailing feature creep issues and workarounds/recovery steps. -jef
