On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Axel Thimm wrote: >If this mail is too long: You probably don't want to upgrade rpm for >doing conservative, backported (security) bugfixes. Also my >recommendation would be to use Progeny's services, or go straight to >RHEL2/3, as I doubt that in two days legacy will be offering security >rpms. > >On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 11:36:45PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: >> As we discussed earlier, Fedora Legacy will require an upgrade of rpm as >> a requirement for all users who choose to use our repository. It is >> quite clear that we agree upon the rpm upgrade for RH8 and RH9 due to >> the major stability problems associated with those versions. > >Personally I would also upgrade rpm (and in ATrpms' legacy support I >am doing so), but for the target group of legacy I would question this >issue for the following reasons: > >o Red Hat never made rpm.org's errata official for any reasons they > may have. I suggest asking why. Probably they do not consider the > rpm upgrades stable enough. This is a strong signal not to go that > way. If it is anything like when I worked there.. it is just plain orniriness on the part of some developers. The reasons for some of the version numbers of rpm and having Jeff backport a fix to some old version always seemed to be somewhere between 'can we make Jeff have an aneurism this week?' and 'this is how it is and I dont have to explain it to anyone'. -- Stephen John Smoogen smoogen@xxxxxxxx Los Alamos National Labrador CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 5-8058 Ta-03 SM-261 MailStop P208 DP 17U Los Alamos, NM 87545 -- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --
