Hi, I just realized that all nice legacy talks about rpm upgrades, infrastructure, repository mixing etc. have missed some very important _content related_ points, especially the workflow/policies for patching/backporting. It is quite clear to me that the profile of this group is intended to create backported fixes. An important link has already been posted here by Russ P. Herrold: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html Now you can either o do it the hard way: When a security related or other problem pops up, identify the problem, and patch the version coming with the distro. This ensures that the APIs/ABIs remain in place, and that the QA still applies, if the fix is indeed small enough and the patched software QAed with the fix in mind. This is the preferred mode of operation for this forum, IMO. Backporting was the most valuable service coming from RH updates and that is what users will be looking for. o do it the easy way: Usually there will be a recent upstream version fixing the problem, grab the srpm from rawhide, QA it and stuff it into RH7.3 updates. Obviously this is fast, and better than nothing if nobody does the true work above. The latter method is something most external repos do. For instance ATrpms provides upgraded, not backported (!) versions of rpm, yum and apt for RH7.3 upwards. Again I don't think that should be legacy's mode of operation. I expect highly conservative methods here. Otherwise you could just as good submit packages to ATrpms. -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00154.pgp
Description: PGP signature