2014-04-26 11:24 GMT+02:00 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx>:
The principled answer to this is to have a comprehensive automated test suite... which, unfortunately, we don't have.Le vendredi 25 avril 2014 à 19:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> For LSB, there is an explicit promise that if a vendor does what isSo shouldn't redhat-lsb or some subpackage be the one that pull that
> specified, the package will be possible to install and will run
> correctly. We do, of course, have the option to repudiate LSB and
> explicitly say we don't care for future releases.
part ?
That's a clean solution for the LSB concern, but not for the larger point. (Honestly this is more a matter of reinforcing the principle than finding a perfect solution for that specific file.)
> And it's not only commercial software; private projects that make no> sense to publish (such as a company's web site) are equally affectedThen how can we signal to people that they need to update those
> such changes. Simply spoken, if we care only about package in Fedora,
> we are building an appliance; if we want to build an operating system,
> we do need to cater for software not included directly in the repo.
packages ?
My opinion is that in most cases this is just asking the wrong question; we shouldn't need to signal that. When old applications correctly using the API of $os_name stops working, your product is in a very practical sense no longer $os_name.
Because we can as well say "we are gonna support that forever", but that
will result into bitrot if no one really test.
Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
