2008/11/11 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx>
And if it's deemed stable enough for F10 as a release then surely it should be stable enough as an update for F9. A big and not uncomplicated update granted but we could in theory put this into updates-testing and roll it out for F9 as well. If the argument against doing this would be stability one would be left questioning how F10 could be labelled stable in the fist place.
Bojan Smojver (bojan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:To bring a more concrete angle to the discussion - the new plymouth
> I'm not so sure about the "easily" bit.
>
> Let's say disconnected non-local authentication got addressed by various
> components. How are you going to test this without pulling in the whole new
> distro if something in say glibc got changed to accommodate it? Very hard to do
> and not worth the trouble of risking massive breakage this can cause.
bootup support required not just the new plymouth package, but also
changes to:
- mkinitrd
- initscripts
- X server
- X drivers
- kernel
- gdm
- mesa (?)
... at which point you're dragging back an awful lot.
And if it's deemed stable enough for F10 as a release then surely it should be stable enough as an update for F9. A big and not uncomplicated update granted but we could in theory put this into updates-testing and roll it out for F9 as well. If the argument against doing this would be stability one would be left questioning how F10 could be labelled stable in the fist place.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
