On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Blame too those upstream projects who introduce these changes, fedora is > just a collection of all those items. It is not that simple. The distinction between fedora and upstream in many cases is rather fuzzy. For example the hal/dbus/consoleKit/*Kit is put in fedora when it is at early development stages, and many of the developpers involved in these are also involved in fedora. And the changes are pushed in fedora without taking seriously the backward compatibility issues. For example wdm and xdm (and slim) are broken since consolekit replaced pam_console, and although there is a rather simple solution to integrate those dm it has never been planned and it is still not fixed, though a fix exist for months. As long as it worked in gdm it was fine for fedora. You can tell, hey, xdm, wdm and slim can copy what gdm does, but when the solution implemented in gdm is specific and not consistent with the previous designs, it is not so easy. Fedora controls some upstream so can do anything in these, but doesn't control all of them. I am not saying that it is a wrong approach, being able to have a platform for experimentation is indeed valuable, but you cannot charge upstream for all regressions in fedora, especially when improper or unplanned integration is linked with the regression, or the unstability is linked with different features being proposed in packages controlled by people in fedora and packages with an independent upstream. In comparison, the transition to upstart was smooth, and a reason may be that fedora wasn't the testing ground for that feature that originated from ubuntu (though fedora people helped upstream at the time it was integrated in fedora). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
