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

Re: some closure on the xorg updates issue



Rahul schrieb:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:
In short, it's a major change with only modest benefit, and a better solution is coming soon.
And what IS that "better solution"?
A well defined updates policy with the release engineering team to grant exceptions when required.
Draft at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UpdatesPolicy
And how is that a solution to the problem that an X.Org update is needed to add support for some hardware (Intel) and improve support for others (ATI r3xx/r4xx)?
It is not. We cant put everything that goes into rawhide into the general releases as update. [...]

Agreed for things like gnome 2.x -> 2.(x+2), but hardware support is a special case IMHO. Consider this hypothetical example:

early april 20xx: FCx get releases with Xorg y.z
mid april 20xx: Xorg y.(z+1) gets released with new drivers
end april 20xx: Intel releases Chipset G1015 with integrated graphics
early may 20xx: Intel releases updated drivers for G1015 that require Xorg y.(z+1)

Those buying a Mainboard with G1015 need a solution then. They don't want to wait 5 month until the next proper FC release. Or 2 month for a beta (and most people don't want to run a beta).

CU
thl


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