On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to
to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
"stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
for out there in the wild. To be a leading edge distribution. And dont
come up again with rawhide. That's just ridiculous, because then i can
run EVERY distro out there and use their rawhide/factory/cooker or
whatever name they have. Leading edge doesn't stand only for "new
technics adopted first".
Another thing, since you throw that links about
package_update_guidelines around, some maintainers should also check
what software is my software built against and dont push broken
software without testing to stable because of that "mistake" ;)
Just to remind anyone, if you forgot, or dont know what Fedora stands
for IN REAL LIFE, you might go out and check it. It stands exactly for
what you terribly fight against. And people love it exactly for that.
But sure, there's always the possibility to bend over and try as hard
as you can to make something without an own identity.....
I think you're making a mistake. Surely there's a fundamental
distinction between a distro that has the latest packages when
released and a distro that has the latest packages all the time via
updates. Even if Fedora didn't push new upstream versions via
updates, it'd still be a very hot leading edge distro.