status of up2date and rhn-applet
Benny Amorsen
benny+usenet at amorsen.dk
Fri Dec 2 11:02:00 UTC 2005
>>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at 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 +
Extras.
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.
/Benny
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list