On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:58:32PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Till Maas wrote: > > a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox > > host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed. The removal of the file was > > noticed during testing, but it seems nobody noticed that this affects > > VirtualBox. Is this kind of change sanctioned by the > > current update criteria? > > Till, > > The amd_iommu.h header was moved from asm/ to linux/ in kernel 3.1. The > VirtualBox source has a define for version < 3.1 use asm/, else use > linux/. This problem won't be seen by F16 users. It's a small > side-effect in F15 as it is still using 2.6.x kernel versioning. > > As to the update criteria, it would be allowed. VirtualBox is not a > Fedora package. AFAIK the only thing stopping VBox from being a Fedora > package is its required kernel module and Fedora's policy against > out-of-kernel modules. Actually, this isn't correct. Or rather, the update may or may not be allowed by the crieria but it certainly is not allowed for the reason cited. Here's some sippets from the Policy: Introduction: "In general, releases should go from less conservative (rawhide) to more so (the oldest supported stable release)." Beta To Pre Release: [By the Beta stage of a release cycle maintainers MUST::] "# Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all possible. " Stable release: Philosophy: "Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features, particularly when those features would materially affect the user or developer experience" "ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged, they force larger update sets on users and they make life difficult for third-party packagers." Stable Release: All other updates: "Package maintainers MUST: * Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all possible. " The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason. Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use of Fedora whether or not that software exists within Fedora. This update may be acceptable because the bugs fixed were deemed more worthwhile than the changes that were introduced but that decision should not hinge upon the availability of affected software within Fedora but upon the popularity of such software among users of Fedora, the ease with which that software can be made to work with Fedora once the change goes in, and how those questions weigh against the issues that are resolved by the new version. If those aren't the criteria that we want to use then the updats policy (and possibly the updates vision) should be amended. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpiH_ftYBflf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
