KDE vs. GNOME on F10

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
> Sure, this is comparable to the present situation.  But it doesn't seem
> like it makes things much better.
> 
> * It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack
> isn't going to be updated for F10 since the maintainers don't want to do
> this and the policy wouldn't require it)
> * It doesn't solve the follow-on issue of things being different between
> major Fedora components (since gnome maintainers don't want to
> participate but kde maintainers do)
> * It makes things more complex (for instance, we would have to build
> packages against multiple repository sets -- ie: [F12-release +
> F12-updates-security] [F12-release + F12-updates-security +
> F12-updates-adventurous] since there could be incompatibilities between
> the packages in updates-security and updates-adventurous.).
> * It makes more work for rel-eng to prepare and push the extra repos.

It also would require multiple CVS branches, one for security, one for
adventurous, as well as different buildroots to go along with those,
since you wouldn't be able to build a security update for a gnome
package against the newer adventurous gtk and expect it to work on the
older GTK, likewise if you had to modify a gnome package to work with
newer gtk, you dont' want those modifications in the way if/when you
need to do a conservative security update for it later.

All this really does is create a pseudo rawhide for each release,
blurring the lines even more around why we even do releases.  With a 6
month cycle, do we really want to take on all this extra headaches and
hassles just so that you can have some newer experimental software a bit
sooner, or without doing a wholesale update to the next release?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090805/a65c4b98/attachment.sig>