On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:07:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100
Phil Sutter <psutter(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter <psutter(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how
> > > that could come to unison with the kernel updates applied to
> > > stable versions. Any new version could break existing
> > > functionality (although not intended), so that "should" seems
> > > be key.
> > Yes. And iproute is not an exception. I remember a new iproute
> > stopped displaying IP addresses. And the bug was there for 14 days
> > until I fixed it.
> Thanks Petr for your input. You seem to be the first one who
> understands my concerns with "rebases" (as Fedora seems to call it)
> in stable releases.
well, if you are referring to the kernel, thats kind of a special case:
and has a exception to the normal updates policy.
Yes, I was always just referring to the kernel package, since that and
the iproute package are so closely related. Thanks for pointing me at
this wiki page, it explains a lot!
Summarizing for myself, Fedora kernels are not stable (strictly
speaking). Just jumping from one stable to the next one tries to go in
that direction, but there's no guarantee a feature that worked in e.g.
v4.3.5 will still work in v4.4.1. So this is merely a compromise between
what is desired and what is achievable with the given manpower.
> I really wish this topic wasn't as controversial as it
appears to be.
> Personall, I don't really care what Fedora's policy really is and I'm
> fine following whatever it states. But the mere fact that it seems to
> allow for interpretation to a point where it contradicts itself is not
> only a bad sign, it most importantly for me makes it hard to follow.
I'm not sure I see the contradiction. The kernel has an exception here
(for all the reasons listed on the above wiki page)
Sure, whether it counts as contradiction is debatable. In my opinion the
mere fact that there is an exception to the rule (as the wiki page
stated above clearly shows) serves as proof. But that's just nitpicking
So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it
doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK?