On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:07:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100 > Phil Sutter <psutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter <psutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how > > > > that could come to unison with the kernel updates applied to > > > > stable versions. Any new version could break existing > > > > functionality (although not intended), so that "should" seems to > > > > be key. > > > > > > Yes. And iproute is not an exception. I remember a new iproute > > > stopped displaying IP addresses. And the bug was there for 14 days > > > until I fixed it. > > > > Thanks Petr for your input. You seem to be the first one who > > understands my concerns with "rebases" (as Fedora seems to call it) > > in stable releases. > > well, if you are referring to the kernel, thats kind of a special case: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases > and has a exception to the normal updates policy. Yes, I was always just referring to the kernel package, since that and the iproute package are so closely related. Thanks for pointing me at this wiki page, it explains a lot! Summarizing for myself, Fedora kernels are not stable (strictly speaking). Just jumping from one stable to the next one tries to go in that direction, but there's no guarantee a feature that worked in e.g. v4.3.5 will still work in v4.4.1. So this is merely a compromise between what is desired and what is achievable with the given manpower. > > I really wish this topic wasn't as controversial as it appears to be. > > Personall, I don't really care what Fedora's policy really is and I'm > > fine following whatever it states. But the mere fact that it seems to > > allow for interpretation to a point where it contradicts itself is not > > only a bad sign, it most importantly for me makes it hard to follow. > > I'm not sure I see the contradiction. The kernel has an exception here > (for all the reasons listed on the above wiki page) Sure, whether it counts as contradiction is debatable. In my opinion the mere fact that there is an exception to the rule (as the wiki page stated above clearly shows) serves as proof. But that's just nitpicking anyway. So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK? Thanks, Phil -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
