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

Re: package stability



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


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