GNOME Vs KDE upgradeability.

[John (J5) Palmieri]

You fail to see that major development in GNOME itself is done by the
desktop team at Red Hat.  GNOME is heavily dependent on the whole stack
of technologies that make up the OS.  Moving from one version to the
next means new dependencies on lower layer technologies such as HAL, D-
BUS and others.  Not to mention all the SE-Linux changes that would need
to be made.  Sure we could ship a new version without these tight
dependencies but then you often lose functionality or bugs pop up from
interactions that we would not have time to test.  We prefer to leave
older version stable with bug fixes and leave development to happen in
Rawhide with stabilization happening right before a new release.  Put it
this way, we could spend our time constantly updating GNOME in older
releases and chasing down regressions or we can build new functionality
to compete with other OS's.

This doesn't preclude someone from going out and building an alternative
repository for GNOME updates on older versions of Fedora.

On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 12:09 -0600, Gain Paolo Mureddu wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> The original point of my discussion has been vindicated: There's yet
> again, another KDE update with all its libs and all other programs to
> 3.5.1, and got me wondering, GNOME 2.12 should be almost 6 months now
> and Fedora Core 4 never got an update for it, nor was there an update
> for Fedora Core 3 to update from 2.8 to 2.10 once Core 4 was out as an
> update. I know resources are limited, and yet KDE has had a major
> version update, where GNOME has had none... What I find oddest about
> this, is that Fedora is built around GNOME (or GTK+ at least) and
> GNOME's even the default desktop, and yet the one with a major revamp
> is KDE? Call me stupid, but I plainly don't understand this, and goes
> beyond the fact I use GNOME over KDE, I'm sure a lot of KDE users and
> fans in Fedora are quite happy with the updates, I just wonder why
> this is not the case with the *default* DE... Seems odd.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFD5O3WXM+XOp70dwoRAnzNAJ94gou+ncf9Zd/fJr6qh9cx0pqFTACfRbG8
> pAGGjR655bFAYADZdQX66lE=
> =dCdV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>