Re: [Sheflug] Re: redhat 9.0

[Alex Hudson <home [at] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 19:41, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote:
> Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the upstream
> packages. This includes updates; our default policy will be to upgrade
> to new versions for security as well as for bugfix and new feature
> update releases of packages.

I'm not convinced that's actually a change in their policy, though. I
remember an number of updates I've applied that were not just backported
fixes; they only ever rarely did that.

> The issue of Apache was an example when RedHat were talking about
> backporting software over shipping new releases. The issue applies to
> any software which in the future may break binary compatibility between
> releases. 

That's as much an issue with Apache as Red Hat though. Breaking binary
compatibility in a stable release isn't something which should ever
happen - that's the whole idea of stable releases. Hence my point that
Apache is possibly something of a special case here.

I would suspect if there was a fix in a stable release that broke lots
of things, that they wouldn't just put it out there.

Anyhow, I have Fedora on my desktop now - that's what I'm using right
now. It's very good. Hardware detection has been absolutely flawless
(right down to configuring the 3D acceleration for my ATi card).
Installation was utterly painless (except my current partitioning scheme
is wrong and needs fixing... ;).

I can recommend it for the smoothest bzflag experience yet :) I won't
comment on actual usage until I've played with it for a while. I have
noticed, though, that OOo1.1 isn't quite as nice as the Debian version
(doesn't have all the Gnome icons, etc..)

Cheers,

Alex.

___________________________________________________________________

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

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.