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

Re: Pull off AIGLX repoistory?



On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:22:10PM +0200, Chris Chabot wrote:
> 
> Isn't that what 'releases' are for, major updates & upgrades?

I've never thought so.

The problem with not releasing 'major updates & upgrades' is that it forces
people to wait until a release is actually done to use some of their hardware.
We have enough people thinking 'If my hardware is less than 1 year old, it
won't work under Linux' that I don't want to add to that impression.

>                                                                It will be
> kind of hard for anyone making software to say "Works well on fedora core 5,
> if you exclude these packages, or haven't/have updated before/after
> xx-xx-xxxx"

Beats "You could be using hardware foo under Linux but we've decided you're
going to have to wait until the next release", IMHO.

> To me a 'supported' (bad word to use I know :-)) release would mean that its
> API/ABI stable, but security fixes are made available, and if something
> works with 'FC-5', then it should work with FC-5 :-)

Given unlimited ressources, you're probably right.
The trouble is that Fedora doesn't have unlimited ressources and our time
is probably better spent elsewhere.

> though some people might have something of an resentment against binary
> applications or drivers, I don't see why we have to be 'against' them either
> and go out of our way to break them 'because we can', fedora is a platform
> for many things..

Agreed. I'm just not sure that fixing ATI/NVidia's mistakes for them is
one of those things.

Emmanuel


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