>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: AT> I really wonder what makes accepting "package replacements" so AT> hard, when you accept "kernel functionality replacement". If I AT> were to fear about destabilisation of my system, then I would AT> place avoiding kernel modules at number 1. When I later upgrade to FC5, I can be reasonably sure that breakage will be limited to the areas where I assumed the risk. In the case of the kernel module, there will be no breakage at all, since the ipw2200-module will be for an obsolete package by then. It is not stability of the system (as in, no random OOPSes) that I am concerned about. I just want a system that stays close to Fedora Core + Extras, so that I can count on the community around Fedora Core + Extras. I think Fedora + ATrpms is different enough to count as a separate distribution -- one that I have no interest in running. The same goes for Fedora + Livna and a few other large repositories. Fedora ATrpms has a significantly smaller community around it than Fedora Core + Extras does. /Benny -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
