On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 09:29 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:35 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 09:13 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > >>>> No, he's asking about introducing new packages to a released product. > >>>> Say > >>>> Fedora 7 goes out the door with a given package set. Three weeks later a > >>>> great new package gets added to the Fedora universe, what kind of policy > >>>> would there be in making this package available to the Fedora 7 users? > >>> IMO, basically like FE has been doing it, so far, except that breaking > >>> APIs, ABIs and packages deps etc. must not happen. > >> 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. > > I guess we disagree then. <bitter sarcasm> Welcome to the wonderful "world of rawhide" - Good Night, Fedora! You once had been a usable distro, but your masters now seem to be wanting to convert you into a jungle :( </bitter sarcasm> > I consider ABI compatibility as just one part > of what defines a stable distro, but, imo, there are certainly cases > where breaking ABI is justified (for essential features, bug fixes, and > yes, stability sometimes). Please ask RH how they have been handling Core, so far. I don't know how many times I've been told: "No API-changes, no ABI upgrade, no feature upgrades, often not even bugfixes (aka FIXEDRAWHIDE)"! Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
