On 16th Dec 2011, 11:37, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it finally reaches RHEL.
Fedora does not have any bearing on what downstream distribution based on Fedora be it Red Hat or something else do.
<snip>
I would gestimate that F18+ will become RHEL7
I understand what you're trying to say Johann, but you do sound a little contradictory!
I sense an attitude of "not my responsibility" here, and a wider problem with the way that Linux is developed. Jared told me in this posting http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-December/160499.html that Fedora have practically no sway in upstream development decisions, even those that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.
This would seem to be a disjointed muddle. Perhaps you can begin to see the benefit of using Solaris if one vendor can take full responsibility for the whole thing, rather than trying to run away with as little responsibility as possible.
If a developer makes a change to glibc, he is *absolutely* going to affect RHEL. Likewise, by your own admittance that F18+ or thereabouts will become RHEL7, if a developer makes a change to Fedora, he is *absolutely* going to affect RHEL. What benefit could there possibly be for the millions of end users of Linux by upstream developers burying their heads in the sand or otherwise denying responsibility for how their actions will affect downstream? This is the fabric that makes Linux a success, and will be its downfall if it is not well managed.
<steps off soapbox ...>
Now, back to the original subject matter. Is backwards compatibility a good thing, or a bad thing?
If you cant prepare your infrastructure for these changes and you cant convince upstream then RHEL6 will be supported for years to come.
By your statement "if you can't prepare your infrastructure for these changes ..." it sounds to me like you're happy to be causing pain for system administrators. Change is sometimes a necessity, yes, but change for the sake of change is nothing but a pain. And in this case, and in my opinion, the nss_db change in glibc was not required, it benefits no one, and will introduce pain for no reason.
Best regards, Mark.
On 12/16/2011 01:40 PM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
On 16th Dec 2011, 11:37, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it finally reaches RHEL.
Fedora does not have any bearing on what downstream distribution based on Fedora be it Red Hat or something else do.
<snip>
I would gestimate that F18+ will become RHEL7
I understand what you're trying to say Johann, but you do sound a little contradictory!
I sense an attitude of "not my responsibility" here, and a wider problem with the way that Linux is developed. Jared told me in this posting http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-December/160499.html that Fedora have practically no sway in upstream development decisions, even those that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.
Yes from my personal view point we dont care about what happens in RHEL land or any other downstream distribution to Fedora no more than upstream cares about what happens in Fedora since to them we are just another distribution/consumer consuming their product.
This would seem to be a disjointed muddle. Perhaps you can begin to see the benefit of using Solaris if one vendor can take full responsibility for the whole thing, rather than trying to run away with as little responsibility as possible.
I personally say we take full responsibility of what happens in Fedora and affects Fedora and it's user base and I'm pretty sure Red Hat does for it's products and Debian for it's and Suse for it's etc. but we dont take any responsibility on what happens in clones or any downstream distribution to the project and it's users base or any other distribution user base no more than upstream(s) which make up Fedora do with regards to the Fedoraproject or in any other distribution and it's derivatives or clones...
I personally look at the relation ship between Red Hat and Fedora as an good collaborating effort between two distinct distributions with two very distinct target audiences of which both parties greatly benefit of the work of working together but I dont see either partner controlling the other one but as is the nature with any relation ship one partner might try to influence the other one as best he can and it's pretty obvious since Red Hat is downstream to us it benefit's most from such actions.
Ofcourse others might not share my opinion.
<snip>
Now, back to the original subject matter. Is backwards compatibility a good thing, or a bad thing?
That depends on changes being made in the components in question and is a judgement call that is ultimately upon maintainer(s) to decide.
Be it upstream where they make that call or downstream where they might have to carry and maintain their own patch set which reintroduces the backward compatibility that upstream has decided to no longer support.
If you cant prepare your infrastructure for these changes and you cant convince upstream then RHEL6 will be supported for years to come.
By your statement "if you can't prepare your infrastructure for these changes ..." it sounds to me like you're happy to be causing pain for system administrators.
No I'm not nor was I trying to come of like that.
Regards JBG
Mark R Bannister (mark@proseconsulting.co.uk) said:
that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.
He's saying *he* doesn't. If you think he speaks for everyone who works on Fedora, well...
Bill
On 12/16/2011 03:40 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Mark R Bannister (mark@proseconsulting.co.uk) said:
that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.
He's saying *he* doesn't. If you think he speaks for everyone who works on Fedora, well...
Yes I am but one voice in the community distribution Fedora and I don't serve on any committee or anything like that nor was I ever implying that I did or that I was speaking or otherwise represent the whole project or certain subgroups within the project in any shape or form.
The board can clear all up all misunderstanding that the RHEL users/customer or any other downstream or any clone distribution users to the Fedoraproject might have.
An simple wiki page with the nature of the relationship between the Fedoraproject and Red Hat and any other downstream or clone distribution and the responsibility we have with regards to those distributions as in non Fedora users probably would suffice to prevent any kind of misunderstanding in the future.
I'll open a ticket and or get the discussion of that going on over on the board list.
Regards JBG
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:40:59PM +0000, Mark R Bannister wrote:
I sense an attitude of "not my responsibility" here, and a wider problem with the way that Linux is developed. Jared told me in this posting http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-December/160499.html that Fedora have practically no sway in upstream development decisions, even those that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.
Fedora has its own leadership, its own developer base and its own priorities. Fedora is allowed to go its own way with casual disregard for RHEL. I see this as a good thing - without the room to explore, there's no way that we'd produce something that resulted in RHEL shipping with exciting new features. But it does mean that sometimes decisions are made that others feel aren't appropriate for RHEL - in that case it's something that needs to be argued either with upstream or with your Red hat support contact.
-
Bill Nottingham -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
mark＠proseconsulting.co.uk -
Matthew Garrett