Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> > That language may be a bit too strong, as I can think of cases where an
> > essential update may end up breaking ABI, though it's not unreasonable to
> > to make policy such that it *should* (not must) be avoided.
> Well, this "must" is the core point about all this - Fedora should be a
> stable distro.
>
> Where would be the difference to rawhide, otherwise?
* Less bugs (because stuff usually got through Rawhide and/or updates-testing
before, and also because updates which are known to break stuff are not pushed
to the stable distro).
* Less dependency problems within packages shipped by Fedora (as
in "reverse-dependencies get rebuilt for the ABI change and pushed together
with the ABI-changing library update", not as in "ABIs never change"; the
Core/Extras merger will probably make it easier to coordinate ABI changes in
core packages, so the lag between a core library update and all packages
getting rebuilt can in principle be made invisible to the user through
coordination of the pushes).
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
