On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:39:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > As I said, the particular code isn't the issue. We ship a kernel API. At >> > present, we consider it fine to break that API in stable releases. This >> > is not something that would be considered 'stable' in a traditional >> > definition. The kernel's just an example, we do the same kind of >> > non-stable updates all over the place. That's the issue I'm trying to >> > talk about, not just the specific example I happened to mention. Please >> > don't bog down in specifics. >> >> Well, the specifics are that packages both within Fedora and in third-party >> repositories which depend on the bumped API usually get rebuilt (and patched >> if needed) fairly quickly, normally before the update even goes stable. Of >> course that's only possible for software which can be patched, which is just >> another example of how binary-only software is broken by design. > >But we're providing an operating system, not just a bunch of packages. >What if some group's written their own kernel module for their own >purposes, rolled it out to all their systems, and doesn't expect an >official update to make them re-write it? Same question for KDE - If they don't expect that, they have no idea what Fedora is or how it works. We don't care about out of tree drivers. >someone writes a tool for their group based on some KDE libraries, >doesn't expect an update to come along and do a major KDE version bump >and break some interface the tool relied on...reducing the question to >'are all the packages we care about okay' is, again, excluding some use >cases, i.e. defining an identity for Fedora. You keep making strawman arguments that liken Fedora to something more akin to RHEL or Ubuntu LTS. We aren't either of those. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
