"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Fri Dec 16 15:10:15 UTC 2011

On 12/16/2011 01:40 PM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
> On 16th Dec 2011, 11:37, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
>>> If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it
>>> finally reaches RHEL.
>> Fedora does not have any bearing on what downstream distribution based
>> on Fedora be it Red Hat or something else do.
> <snip>
>> I would gestimate that F18+ will become RHEL7
> I understand what you're trying to say Johann, but you do sound a little
> contradictory!
> I sense an attitude of "not my responsibility" here, and a wider problem with the
> way that Linux is developed.  Jared told me in this posting
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-December/160499.html that
> Fedora have practically no sway in upstream development decisions, even those
> that affect critical components such as glibc.  Now you're telling me that when
> you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard
> for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might impact RHEL.

Yes from my personal view point we dont care about what happens in RHEL 
land or any other downstream distribution to Fedora no more than 
upstream cares about what happens in Fedora since to them we are just 
another distribution/consumer consuming their product.

> This would seem to be a disjointed muddle.  Perhaps you can begin to see the
> benefit of using Solaris if one vendor can take full responsibility for the whole
> thing, rather than trying to run away with as little responsibility as possible.

I personally say we take full responsibility of what happens in Fedora 
and affects Fedora and it's user base and I'm pretty sure Red Hat does 
for it's products and Debian for it's and Suse for it's etc. but we dont 
take any responsibility on what happens in clones or any downstream 
distribution to the project and it's users base or any other 
distribution user base no more than upstream(s) which make up Fedora do 
with regards to the Fedoraproject or in any other distribution and it's 
derivatives or clones...

I personally look at the relation ship between Red Hat and Fedora as an 
good collaborating effort between two distinct distributions with two 
very distinct target audiences of which both parties greatly benefit of 
the work of working together but I dont see either partner controlling 
the other one but as is the nature with any relation ship one partner 
might try to influence the other one as best he can and it's pretty 
obvious since Red Hat is downstream to us it benefit's most from such 

Ofcourse others might not share my opinion.


> Now, back to the original subject matter.  Is backwards compatibility a good
> thing, or a bad thing?

That depends on changes being made in the components in question and is 
a judgement call that is ultimately upon maintainer(s) to decide.

Be it upstream where they make that call or downstream where they might 
have to carry and maintain their own patch set which reintroduces the 
backward compatibility that upstream has decided to no longer support.

>> If you cant prepare your infrastructure for these changes and you cant
>> convince upstream then RHEL6 will be supported for years to come.
> By your statement "if you can't prepare your infrastructure for these changes
> ..." it sounds to me like you're happy to be causing pain for system
> administrators.

No I'm not nor was I trying to come of like that.


More information about the devel mailing list