----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rich Mattes" <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 12:33:45 PM > Subject: Re: The glvnd + mesa update for F25 > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 06-02-17 23:01, Jan Pokorný wrote: > >> > >> On 06/02/17 15:13 -0500, Christian Schaller wrote: > >>> > >>> There has been a lot of discussions for the last few years about glvnd on > >>> the mesa-devel list and at XDC. This is not Fedora specific technology, > >>> but > >>> a change in how Mesa will work everywhere and thus there has not been a > >>> lot > >>> of discussions about it here on Fedora-devel. But that is true for most > >>> stuff, > >>> we do not discuss major new kernel features here that much either as one > >>> example. > >> > >> > >> I don't think that's a fair point. If there was an artificial > >> intermediate level put in front of libc that would only be to > >> solve issues with some hardware component, and it would be forcibly > >> implanted into Fedora unnecessarily for all audience, then it would > >> be comparable. > >> > >> But even then, I doubt it would happen without questioning such > >> aspects. > >> > >> Forcing glvnd for all is Fedora specific, as far as I can tell. > > > > > > I just got asked a bunch of question by the Debian X / mesa > > maintainer about glvnd since he is working on moving Debian over > > to this too. Really there is nothing Fedora specific about this. > > > > The change to mesa isn't fedora specific. How and when we test and > integrate that change (and other large, potentially breaking changes) > with the rest of the software in the distribution is what's fedora > specific. That's what needs to be discussed on the list, and it's why > the change process exists. I fully agree, but my response was not to an email arguing about timing, but one questioning the legitimacy of the change and the level of community vetting it had seen. > Kernel changes are a bad example to prove your point, for a number of > reasons. The kernel is specifically exempted from the stable update > guidelines, and can be updated at any time. Kernel upstream has a > policy about not breaking userspace, so most changes that aren't bugs > are just extended functionality. That said, the kernel team has been > emailing the devel list lately with their plans for when major kernel > releases will hit each branch. > > Rich > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
