On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 10:33 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:13:39 -0500 > David Mansfield <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think Fedora LTS would be: > > - planned and built into the Fedora cycle and finally implemented > > - only releases planned in advance to be LTS releases would be LTS > > - there would only be one (or two) outstanding LTS releases at a time > > And you create the same problem. They won't be frequent enough to > support today's hardware, and also if you constantly just do new > versions of everything you lose the ability to support it long term as > too much churn breaks things. > > To be fair, RHEL/CentOS does do limited hardware enablement in the > update releases, like 5.0, 5.1, etc... Limited? 5.2 basically has the latest upstream wireless stack. I think e1000 was bumped to latest upstream, and I know IPSec support was almost completely rereved. I know some of the block device drives had gigantic updates. Hardware enablements are a big part of the early RHEL life cycle (first 3 or 5 years can't really remember I don't do sales) If you have hardware that works in fedora and doesn't work in CentOS 5 feel free to file a bug. It might not get a lot of attention if you are the only person on earth with that piece of hardware, but RHEL (although very slow) enables lots of hardware every release. Admittedly you need a lot of patience waiting for updates if you have the fedora speed mindset.... -Eric -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
