On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:48:28 -0700, you wrote: >On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 00:18 +0200, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> If FC5 hadn't supported the proprietary drivers in the first place >> then I >> wouldn't see a problem here since the users had a choice of upgrading >> to/installing FC5 with that fact in mind > >I think you have that backwards. nvidia and ATI decide whether or not >it's worth it for them to release binary drivers targeted at any >particular distro release. The Fedora Project, whether in a core release >or rawhide, makes no pretense at "supporting" those drivers. It is not a question of Fedora supporting binary drivers, but rather the expectation of a user that once they install a released version of Fedora that they can expect the system to remain "stable" until they choose to upgrade to a newer version. Any update should not be pushed out to a release that breaks the users system, whether it be a binary driver, binary application, or even custom scripts that depend on a given version of a language/library that breaks. If X.Org 7.1 is made available as an official upgrade to Fedora 5 when the Fedora Project/Red Hat are aware that it will break systems that are in use across companies and institutions then Fedora will lose credibility and trust with the administrators of those systems, which will damage the reputation of Fedora/Red Hat, as well as convince those organizations to look into alternatives where stability within a release is valued as it used to be with Red Hat. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
