On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's the wrong question. The real question is, what interface did you > just break in an update? You don't need to know anything about anyone else's > software. You just need to provide working interfaces. Or, when you > whimsically break them in updates, give a hint about how to get a working > version back. Are you suggesting that we should never provide an unstable interface in any of the libraries or scripting modules that we package? And that we only provide technologies that upstream has committed to API stability between subsequent releases? Surely you aren't suggesting that. You can't really expect us to hold an API stable when upstream isn't...that's just silly. At best you could maybe hope for a subset of available technologies to be identified as upstream interface stable, and get a subset of maintainers to pledge to keep interfaces stable inside a release timeframe in conjunction with those upstream projects. There is no coherent initiative towards what could be generously termed a 'Fedora SDK'. I've seen no interest from a group of active maintainers..ever..to take on that problem space and commit to seeing it happen. Something like this would require a community member to step forward and be a strong, active, persuasive leader on the effort. I very much doubt that you are the right person to lead such an effort, even if you did decide this is the issue that would finally get you off the fence and working on something constructively. So my advice to you is, dial back the rhetoric and see if you can get other people talking about this and identify the person you think can lead this initiative. -jef"if I only had a beowulf cluster of XO's"spaleta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
