some closure on the xorg updates issue
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Fri Aug 11 12:54:55 UTC 2006
Rahul <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
> >> In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better
> >> solution is coming soon.
> > And what IS that "better solution"?
> A well defined updates policy with the release engineering team to grant
> exceptions when required.
> Draft at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UpdatesPolicy
And how is that a solution to the problem that an X.Org update is needed to add
support for some hardware (Intel) and improve support for others (ATI
> Major new versions of system libraries, frameworks and desktop environments
> MUST not be provided as updates and only in the subsequent releases.
Sigh, is that really what we want? FC4 got a major KDE upgrade, there was only
one serious breakage (K3b) which was fixed by a subsequent K3b upgrade, and
which would most likely have been avoided if the KDE upgrade got through
updates-testing as the new update policy suggests requiring, and there were
visible benefits. There were also several user complaints on the fedora-list
about the lack of a KDE upgrade to 3.5.0 before it was pushed. KDE is
ABI-backwards-compatible as is most of GNOME, so apart from exposing bugs in
particular applications (which was what happened with K3b, and which
updates-testing is there for to catch), there is not much which can go wrong.
Now if course, if "major" means upgrading KDE 3 to KDE 4 (even when KDE 4 gets
released officially), then I fully agree this doesn't make sense in a released
version (putting a parallel-installable kde4 into Extras is certainly a better
solution), but that's not how I read that clause.
More information about the fedora-devel-list