Kevin Kofler wrote:
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell <at> gmail.com> writes:
Can't you just always provide at least 2 versioned libraries? One
essentially equivalent to the latest released RHEL or Centos version(s)
and the other whatever flavor is current? And unless apps need
something new, build them against the stable version.
Fedora is about CURRENT technology. They will ALWAYS prefer the CURRENT version
of the libraries if it is at all possible. Why should Fedora build against an
old one? You are using the wrong distribution.
Yes, I probably overstated the need for long term backwards
compatibility in fedora itself, although I still don't see why it is
impossible or undesirable. What I really want is a smooth transition
between those 'right' distibutions.... That is, assuming RHEL or Centos
as stable production environments, I want to be able to have a
development environment that doesn't take major work to keep running
things from the current production environment and by the time of the
next enterprise release also provides a smooth transition in that
direction. Sort of like the old days of using RH X.0 for
development/testing and by X.2 things were good to go.
I'd like to think of distributions as having some editorial control over
what they ship. If someone writes crap you don't have to publish it.
Or at least overlap old/new versions for a complete version run.
We can't ship unmaintained old versions forever. Are you going to maintain the
obsolete branches of things like GCC?
Isn't that already being done elsewhere? It is only unnecessary
fedora-specific incompatibilities that would keep you from using it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
