On Sat, 08.06.13 11:35, Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 09:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > Its not quite like this. What I need is the OS to be well behaved under normal > > conditions so that when problems come along they are easily spotted. Fedora > > has been a fairly well behaved OS over the years. I have had to get a few apps > > fixed in the past and the maintainers have always been accommodating. But this > > time I am finding we have a serious problem worse than in the past. > > Well, you're defining something as 'bad behaviour' fairly arbitrarily - > or at least controversially: not everyone agrees with your definition. > Continuing to simply assert that the behaviour is bad is not driving the > conversation forward, you're just repeating a position that others have > already raised objections to. Those who are disputing your position are > not saying 'this behaviour is not happening', they are saying 'we > disagree with your definition of "bad behaviour"'. > > If it's not 'bad behaviour', the fact that it didn't happen before is > fairly irrelevant. I could come up with any arbitrary 'test' for some > action that Fedora 19 does that Fedora 18 does not; that doesn't mean I > can then show up on the list waving my test results about and declaring > that there's a problem. First there has to be solid agreement that I'm > actually testing for something we shouldn't be doing. Actually it's worse than that. What Steve proposes as a programming style is something I'd consider actively bad, something that leads to less secure, racy code. And then, I totally don't like this alarmist sound to it, I mean, nothing really changed in PA in the past 5 years, so I really fail to see what this is all about... There isn't any new "trend" I could see here... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
