Kernel Modules in Fedora -x

Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.seyman at
Tue Aug 7 15:50:09 UTC 2007

* Les Mikesell [07/08/2007 16:45] :
> Interfaces broken by mid-version updates are just as broken in fedora as 
> they would be in RHEL and it's not any more a straw man for one 
> distribution than another unless you are willing to say that one is only 
> suitable for testing.

This implies (to varying degrees) several things :

- The two distributions target the same audience.
- The two distributions claim equivalent support of API/ABI stability.
- API/ABI changes are broken for the sheer heck of it.
- Updates have no features other than changes in API/ABI.

These implications range from "not true" to "false". Put together, they
make a poor representation of the reasons why Fedora sticks to upstream
whereas RHEL promises API/ABI stability which is why I call this a straw

>                       If you want to say the changes are a good thing, 
> then lets see them in RHEL too.

Ad hominem tu quoque.
FWIW, its stagnation is one of the reasons I do not use RHEL (or clone

>                                 But, if you want to put that aside for 
> the moment, firewire will make a great example.  Do you forsee a time 
> when you would keep your own backups or valuable data on a firewire 
> drive under fedora?

Not having any firewire materiel, I can't answer the question.
What exactly is the problem with firewire support in Fedora ?


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list