Re: [Sheflug] Re: redhat 9.0

[Alex Hudson <home [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 23:46, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote:
> In Fedora there is a possibility that if there is a patch required that
> the new version will be shipped. 

Why? Where are you getting this from? As far as I can tell, their policy
is not changing (except with respect to Fedora distributing rpms not
maintained by Red Hat).

> There is less emphasis on keeping a stable environment
> as previously was the case

I really don't think this is the case. It's going to be roughly as
stable as Red Hat ever was - the only big difference is that Red Hat
will no longer offer paid support for the product.

> If RH had thrown 2.0.47 out instead of backporting fixes then there
> would be some breakage in some web-based applications.

Well, certainly Fedora does come with 2.0.47, and only time will tell if
Fedora ship something which breaks the original package. But Apache 2 is
still basically unstable software, so it's not really a very good
example of what might happen in packaging policy. If they break Apache
and it's difficult to backport the fix, what do they do? And in some
instances security fixes require "breaking" something.

Anyone doing serious things with Apache in a production environment is
far more likely to want to run 1.3, and the updates there are basically
maintainence/security updates. Apache is probably a special case too; in
that most projects have stable/development branches as I said - ASF
would probably dispute that Apache 2.0 is development/unstable code.

> With RedHat Linux it was more a case of trusting that RedHat updates
> wouldn't break too many things afterwards- with Fedora this promised

I don't think you finished your e-mail :D

Cheers,

Alex.

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.