[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: XFS ?

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 02:09:15PM -0700, joe wrote:
> Havoc Pennington wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:31:04PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Isn't this typically the type of module that would go into the
> >>"kernel-unsupported" sub-package? I'd be very happy to be able to run xfs
> >>at my own risk, being able to do it easily, and keeping a default Red Hat
> >>Linux kernel.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Nothing in RHL is supported really, so it's unclear that
> >supported/unsupported is a useful distinction.
> >  
> >
> er - what's all this about up2date and rhn then? seems like support to me.

For Red Hat Linux there will be no SLA guaranteeing anything.  RHL is
a project, it's not a supported product; Debian is a good analogy. Red
Hat Enterprise Linux is the supported product. Though, RHEL will be
based on RHL so work on RHL will often become part of a supported

RHN is planning to offer the up2date service for RHL, but there you
are being offered only the RHN service, nothing more.

Note that I'm speaking future tense, I don't believe the situation
with RHL 8, 9, etc. has changed.

This policy is a prerequisite to being able to open up the development
model and allow external contributions; our supported bits have to be
limited to a much smaller set of packages (smaller than RHL is now),
more carefully controlled as to when changes are made and what the
changes are like, and released less often. RHL on the other hand
should have a wider range of more recently released packages, as Linux
users traditionally expect.

RHL bits are going to be robust - there are betas and tested releases
and bug tracking - but if it breaks, you get both pieces and a mailing


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]