On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49:28AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Consuming the output of ls is a supported way to use ls. Building third > > party modules is not a supported way to use the kernel. > > > That's not the criteria I see when reading the updates vision and updates > policy. I don't see supported there; I see whether we're breaking things > the way end users are using them. So just to be clear on this, you believe that if a user is relying on byte 0x9e0 of /bin/ls to be 0xdf on x86_64, then that is something that would have to be considered under the update policy? > > It's clear that if we disabled the ability to build third party modules > > at all that the ability to use third party modules would be entirely > > irrelevant and clearly not a consideration. So just pretend that we've > > done that. > > So that we can have this discussion again when a different package also > breaks end user expectations without breaking ABI? If we want to avoid long > discussions that in the end boil down to different interpretations of the > policies we need to take care to make our policies clearly reflect the > meaning we intend. If the relevant metric is "end user expectations", why didn't you just say that in the beginning? We should be clearer that any expectation that third-party modules will be usable over the course of a stable release is wrong. I've no problem with that. It's still not an issue with the updates policy. > Clarifying wording may not be as fun as coding but it is necessary if we > want to stop discussing the same points over and over with slightly > different cases each time. This case requires no clarification. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
