On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:59:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > 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. > > We don't support out of tree kernel modules at all, so they're not > considered when making the determination about whether an update is > appropriate for a stable update. > Nonsense. We don't support them but the updates policy as written covers them. I quoted the places in the policy in my other mail. If you don't like what the updates policy says then change the updates policy to remove, amend, or clarify those sections. However, I also said that the updates policy leaves the decision as a weighted judgement on the maintainer's behalf; the maintainer is free to consider that the bugfixes that the update brings in are more important than the not-in-Fedora-packages that could be broken. I think that is sufficient to cover this case. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp1esRQxoyRp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
