On Nov 26, 2007 3:21 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've followed Les's argument for a long time; he (and others) want kernel > stability but not userland stability. How about this, how about you stop attempting to interpret Les's comments and just speak for yourself. I understand the point you are making concerning ABI stability and you clearly understand that upstream kernel development doesn't value it. It's absolutely not clear to me that the lack of ABI stability is something Les really cares about nor understands why its difficult for Fedora to provide. > > The CentOS and RHEL kernel, OTOH, has security patches backported but the ABI > is fairly constant throughout the usable life. > > > If you can live with yesterday's kernel you can certainly live with > > yesterday's applications. > > Why? If this were true, kde-redhat's RHEL repo wouldn't need to exist. > KDE-Redhat for RHEL exists, therefore this isn't true. It doesn't "NEED" to exist... its "DESIRED" but you "CAN" live without it. It's much easier to provide a fast moving application stack as an addon to a conservative distribution then it is to build a distribution that is conservative and fast moving in different areas. Whether or not there are enough resources in the community to make a derivative distribution which treats the kernel conservatively but can use the Fedora application stack across multiple Fedora releases remains to be seen. What was the point of this thread again? I've detailed where things stand in terms of how fedora is used internally in fedora infrastructure (which by the way uses absolutely nothing but open source bits, no binary kernel modules or any of the things which you've stated a ABI stability need for.) I've not seen anything that I could legitimately take back as a way to improve the Fedora distribution that doesn't run counter to the inherent goals of the distribution to drive development in the upstream projects themselves. If its come down to ABI stability in the kernel, then we are at an impasse. We aren't going to diverge from upstream kernel development for the sake of a distribution specific ABI stagnation. We aren't going to be including any alternative kernel builds which attempt to artificially provide that ABI stagnation like RHEL does. Is there a suggestion or specific complain that I have overlooked? -jef"Enjoys a working suspend resume in the newest fedora kernels"spaleta
