POLICY: Moving discussions around

[Joe(theWordy)Philbrook]

It would appear that on Apr 8, William Hooper did say:

> Joe(theWordy)Philbrook said:
> 
> > Ummmn Yeah, just as long as fedora stays focused on being easy to
> > upgrade without trashing existing configurations.
> >
> > I'd have to add a bunch of 3rd party software to my fedora installation
> > only to trash half of it by upgrading...
> 
> How 3rd party software handles an upgrade is 100% a function of said 3rd
> party software, not Fedora.
> 
> As an example, the FC2 test releases have X.org instead of XFree86.  Any
> 3rd party software the mistakenly has a dependency on XFree86 instead of
> the actual files it needs will fail a dependency check.  How is this
> Fedora Core's fault?
> 
> --
> William Hooper

Ummnn Let me put it this way, I'm saying that If I'm running the stable
core 1, and I successfully install software that is working with core 1, then I
sincerely hope that when I download burn and install with the upgrade
option the new stable core 2 on top of the old core 1 partition, I'm
hoping that at least most of the 3rd party software would still work.

This "could" be something like the linux driver for a lexmark z35
printer. Or it could be the dag repository pine package. Both would be
3rd party to fedora.

Would it really be Fedora Core's fault if such software mistakenly
assumed XFree86? NO! It wouldn't.

But If every time I upgrade I need to replace or reinstall or reconfigure
all my familiar software, then I'm going to find it hard to want to keep
current...

Taking your X.org/XFree86 example further: Choosing X.org is a
reasonable choice for fedora. But if XFree86 was used in core 1(?), then
arbitrarily switched to X.org in core 2, then switched again to XFree86 or some
other in core 3... It would be _very_ annoying.


-- 
|   ---   ___
|   <0>   <->	   Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
|	^		J(tWdy)P
|    ~\___/~	     <<jtwdyp at ttlc.net>>