[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Thu Oct 23 08:30:57 UTC 2008
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 20:46 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:25:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Of _course_ it's not about specific cases. That would require actual
> > substantiated facts which can be verified or disproved; not just
> > handwaving and ranting.
> I answered to Rex giving a specific case, regarding ConsoleKit and
> various dm breakage. You want the bugzilla entries or you trust me?
/me looks back...
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 15:06 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> It is not that simple. The distinction between fedora and upstream in
> many cases is rather fuzzy. For example the hal/dbus/consoleKit/*Kit is
> put in fedora when it is at early development stages, and many of the
> developpers involved in these are also involved in fedora. And the
> changes are pushed in fedora without taking seriously the backward
> compatibility issues. For example wdm and xdm (and slim) are broken
> since consolekit replaced pam_console, and although there is a rather
> simple solution to integrate those dm it has never been planned and it
> is still not fixed, though a fix exist for months. As long as it worked
> in gdm it was fine for fedora. You can tell, hey, xdm, wdm and slim can
> copy what gdm does, but when the solution implemented in gdm is specific
> and not consistent with the previous designs, it is not so easy. Fedora
> controls some upstream so can do anything in these, but doesn't control
> all of them.
Yeah, that sucks. We should do better than that.
Although I've always been a little dubious about our 'Feature Process',
it does seem that it addresses this kind of problem. For the feature to
reach 100% completion, it should obviously involve fixes for the other
display managers. And there is a 'reversion plan' in case we don't
manage to complete the feature in time for the release.
>From what you say above, it sounds like the ConsoleKit feature should be
declared incomplete, and we should be reverting it unless the feature
owners finish the job.
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com Intel Corporation
More information about the devel