On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 11:51 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:26:01AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Do we want to keep API/ABI stable over the corresponding RHEL release? > > It would be interesting to have a document that described RH's specs > in this area. E.g. which API/ABI are more important that others. RHEL > has certainly kept some parts more flexible than others, for example > wireless API/ABI on almost each kernel update. > > It's probably a weighing of pros and cons per case. I've asked about this. There aren't any papers/documents written (yet), but there are supposed to be some tools in the works. I'll work on finding/getting the people involved to discuss the topic on this list. I've volunteered to help write a paper on the topic, so it's now a matter of gathering the technical leadership and confirming the various positions/answers. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part