On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 09:29 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:35 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 09:13 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> No, he's asking about introducing new packages to a released
product.
>>>> Say
>>>> Fedora 7 goes out the door with a given package set. Three weeks later
a
>>>> great new package gets added to the Fedora universe, what kind of
policy
>>>> would there be in making this package available to the Fedora 7 users?
>>> IMO, basically like FE has been doing it, so far, except that breaking
>>> APIs, ABIs and packages deps etc. must not happen.
>> That language may be a bit too strong, as I can think of cases where an
>> essential update may end up breaking ABI, though it's not unreasonable to
>> to make policy such that it *should* (not must) be avoided.
> Well, this "must" is the core point about all this - Fedora should be a
> stable distro.
I guess we disagree then.
<bitter sarcasm>
Welcome to the wonderful "world of rawhide" - Good Night, Fedora!
You once had been a usable distro, but your masters now seem to be
wanting to convert you into a jungle :(
</bitter sarcasm>
I consider ABI compatibility as just one part
of what defines a stable distro, but, imo, there are certainly cases
where breaking ABI is justified (for essential features, bug fixes, and
yes, stability sometimes).
Please ask RH how they have been handling Core, so far.
I don't know how many times I've been told: "No API-changes, no ABI
upgrade, no feature upgrades, often not even bugfixes (aka
FIXEDRAWHIDE)"!
Ralf