[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: status of up2date and rhn-applet

>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm ATrpms net> writes:

AT> I really wonder what makes accepting "package replacements" so
AT> hard, when you accept "kernel functionality replacement". If I
AT> were to fear about destabilisation of my system, then I would
AT> place avoiding kernel modules at number 1.

When I later upgrade to FC5, I can be reasonably sure that breakage
will be limited to the areas where I assumed the risk. In the case of
the kernel module, there will be no breakage at all, since the
ipw2200-module will be for an obsolete package by then.

It is not stability of the system (as in, no random OOPSes) that I am
concerned about. I just want a system that stays close to Fedora Core
+ Extras, so that I can count on the community around Fedora Core +

I think Fedora + ATrpms is different enough to count as a separate
distribution -- one that I have no interest in running. The same goes
for Fedora + Livna and a few other large repositories. Fedora ATrpms
has a significantly smaller community around it than Fedora Core +
Extras does.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]