Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

[Adam Jackson]

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:42 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 16:33:59 -0500, Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 11/17/2010 03:41 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 21:46:09 +0100, François Cami<fdc-lists at fcami.net>  wrote:
> > >> IIRC broken proprietary drivers never stopped us from shipping, but I
> > >> could be wrong.
> > > 
> > > Officially. Unofficially, it was probably a contributing factor.
> > 
> > No, I don't think so.  We've certainly shipped with code that broke any given
> > one of these before.
> 
> I am refering to the case referred to here:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2006-August/088541.html
> 
> There was a lot of discussion and speculation about this at the time.

That was about updating FC5 after it shipped.  An OS that went gold on
20 May 2006, three months before the post you're referencing.  We've
never broken X server ABI in any Fedora release as far as I'm aware, for
basically the same reason you don't bump sonames after release.

That thread sure is a flashback though.  Turns out the things I was
saying four years ago, I still believe:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2006-August/088641.html

Breaking proprietary drivers has _never_ been a ship criteria while I've
been in charge.  Remember F9, when we shipped an xserver 1.5 snapshot
before all the binary drivers were ported?  I got a lot of shit for
that, that was pretty sweet.  Turns out you get criticized no matter
what you do, even if you're unflinchingly consistent for five years.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101117/5b90ad8c/attachment.bin