On Tuesday 06 January 2004 23:55, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. Backporting has been the goal since day 1 for previous RHL releases. FC releases is still in the air. RH will not focus so much on backports for FC updates, rather they'll go the route of new packages. How should Legacy respond to this? As for RHL releases, backporting is absolutely the goal. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
Attachment:
pgp00157.pgp
Description: signature
