Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Last modified 9 years ago
#4510 closed enhancement (invalid)
|Reported by:||Fernando de Oliveira||Owned by:|
Other distributions started using this.
Is it time for us to start using it?
Change History (10)
comment:1 by , 9 years ago
comment:2 by , 9 years ago
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
Fedora is not "other distributions". It's a single distribution, and I guess you are refering to latest development version which also has all kind of "unstable packages", including latest GNOME development version. It isn't "development version" without a reason. Lot of Fedora and Red Hat developers actually develop the mentioned software (Colord, GNOME, etc to name a few) and they use Fedora as a playground for testing the stuff.
comment:4 by , 9 years ago
I do not like referring explicitly to distro names here, that is the reason I put in the plural.
You know that, I have written about it privately, please, next time respect it.
I am talking about • 2013-12-17: Distribution Release: Fedora 20 (heisenbug), which I have installed and which has updated to colord to that version. It is not rawhide.
I like your help and respect you very much indeed, bu have difficulty in following the instability of your humour.
comment:5 by , 9 years ago
It does mention "Fedora" as a distribution suitable for "unstable version". But from what I know, BLFS only follows "stable releases" unless it's necessarry to do otherwise. Do you know of something that strictly requires Colord 1.1.x yet in BLFS?
Ps, I am not trying to be funny or not, I was just trying to answer your original question.
comment:6 by , 9 years ago
|Status:||new → closed|
Thanks for replying.
I know that it is unstable considered unstable there, but after I got it earlier today updated in one distro that is behind us and other in many package versions, started wondering. Went to upstream page, so, being apparently considered stable there, started reading about it, tried to identify differences in API, could not decide, so asked here. I have no problem closing as invalid.
comment:7 by , 9 years ago
Well, if one distribution goes for something, that shouldn't mean that you should go and follow them. Every distro has its policy, it's packaging policy and whatnot. If we were to follow Fedora, we would already have systemd by default.
comment:8 by , 9 years ago
Apologies to you and everybody. I did not express correctly what I wanted.
For some reason(s), this version is included in one distribution that normally only uses stable. What are the reasons? Any advantage? Any problem with the stable version? Any problem with the packages that use it? Any new feature that is already being used by other packages we have?I No reasons at all? I tried to understand these questions, but after all discussion and reading in some sites, I still do not understand.
If there are reasons for that, perhaps they would be good enough for us to also update.
Even if not, I really am curious to understand the reasons or perhaps the complete absence of any.
comment:9 by , 9 years ago
As for why, I really have no idea. If nothing needs newer version, I say "leave it be", since 1.0.5 and 1.1.5 have both been released in December. The fixes that are in 1.1.5 should be also in 1.0.5, but what is not in 1.0.5 is new features found in 1.1.5. My guess is that they needed testing or that something in Fedora needed newer version, so that's why they have upgraded it. Every distro has its own upgrade policy. What's Fedora's reason to upgrade to newer version beats me, but I guess it's nothing we need to worry about.
comment:10 by , 9 years ago
Milestone current deleted
What other distributions? From what I can see, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo and Archlinux are still at 1.0.x versions.