On 11/17/2010 09:46 PM, FranÃois Cami wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Magnus Glantz<mg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100, >>>> Hans de Goede<hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> For those who do not know it yet, recent Fedora glibc updates include >>>>> an optimized memcpy (which gets used on some processors) which breaks the >>>>> 64 bit adobe flash plugin. >>>> I saw memcpy / memmove issues affecting squashfs-tools shortly before the >>>> F14 alpha. So we had some what of a heads up about the issue over three >>>> months ago. It is unfortunate that we didn't catch the flash issue during >>>> prerelease testing of F14. If this really is an important critera for >>>> releases, maybe we should be having QA testing that flash works. >>> I will be very, very, disappointed if that gets added as a criteria >>> for a Fedora release. It would be no different than making sure the >>> nvidia driver works, and we certainly shouldn't be doing that either. >> I can relate to that. I'm all for pure open source, but.. >> >> I really can't see why it would be a bad thing Fedora would do QA on a >> proprietary software that is very important for a majority of the Fedora >> users. >> If we'd have an open source flash player that almost everyone could run >> as a substitute, then it would be a different situation. I would say >> that is the case regarding Nvidia. > IIRC broken proprietary drivers never stopped us from shipping, but I > could be wrong. > > Furthermore, no proprietary software vendor supports Fedora timely and > fixes for issues like this one take months (from their own estimate). > So by making sure proprietary software works, we could break the > "First" Foundation. > > I would also argue we would break the "Freedom" Foundation, because > proprietary software may limit what Fedora can do. > > On the other hand, proprietary software-related bugs found before the > release would probably receive some attention (and could be forwarded > to the vendor accordingly), so anyone is free to test whatever they > use and file bugs. > > I am not saying that we should refrain users from testing proprietary > software - but we should not make it part of the release criteria. > > FranÃois I'm not saying that a broken Adobe Flash would stop Fedora from shipping. But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can: 1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not know, they can't fix it.. The Adobe developers I e-mailed with did say that they took the issue seriously, they want it to work on Fedora, as I'm sure a lot people/companies would. 2) Create a work-around for the end-users (as has been done by several people in the BZ #638477-thread) There's nothing bad about that is it? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
