Kernel Modules in Fedora -x
emmanuel.seyman at club-internet.fr
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