On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> >> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part. >> > > It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in > parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary > churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure, > mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems being able to > take advantage of Fedora more. While you can always brush off any > suggestion with a position of "take it or leave it", it is importance to > recognize that there is room for improvement. If we didn't care about > people with low bandwidth systems, we wouldn't be having yum-presto and > LZMA compressed RPMS So claiming that users with such systems should > just go away doesn't fit into the development efforts already made to > accommodate such users. I agree there's room for improvement. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
