On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 10/20/2011 01:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 15:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> >>>> What did you downgrade to ? >>>> AFAIK Several people had to downgrade from -11 because of nsswitch >>>> issues ... seem glibc is not in good shape :-( >>> >>> You get to pick your breakage. If glibc maintainers would kindly stop >>> pulling random git snapshots into a pending stable release that would be >>> nice >> >> It is horrendously stupid to do this. It is not a question of being >> kind or nice. Fedora is not glibc's development platform. They should >> get their own and stop mucking around and breaking things unnecessarily >> and repeatedly. If they won't stop on their own, FESCo must push them >> to stop. > > Except that Fedora _has_ been glibc's development platform for as long > as I can remember. The Fedora project might not think so, but it's > exactly what upstream glibc does. They've made claims that they won't > change things in glibc that depend on external items until it's in a > Fedora release and they do their final upstream release just before > Fedora does (much the chagrin of rel-eng since we've had to take a > late "upstream" release that is essentially a rename after freeze). > > There are 3 possible solutions. I'll list them in what I think is > order of preference. > > 1) Upstream changes their development model to follow the Fedora > Branched method, introducing a development freeze upstream around the > same time we branch. Non-trivial rewrites and/or features go into > rawhide, bugfixes go into branched. > > 2) We ignore this still, and generally realize that yes the practice > is somewhat dubious but for the most part a vastly large and That should read "... for the most part _isn't_ ...". Sigh. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
