I am happy with too. It is different from what I suggested, but I think this criteria is fine. So ethereal could have been upgraded. I wonder how often this will happen. And what is "consensus". I don't want security updates to drag out because people who don't like this policy in the first place are going to stand in the way. I guess the guys doing the packaging and the QA have the most say. Everyone else can pound sand. =) -- Christian Pearce http://www.commnav.com Jesse Keating said: > > On Thursday 08 January 2004 16:00, Warren Togami wrote: > > I think we should also consider upgrading in cases where all of the > > following conditions are met: > > 1) Absolutely zero cases where API changes would effect any > > distribution OR 3rd party software, because the updated package is a > > leaf node on the dependency tree. I suspect screen may be another > > leaf node. 2) Where having a common %{version} across multiple > > distributions would make it easier to maintain security updates, > > because patches need not be ported and tested multiple times. > > 3) Only by consensus of the list membership. > > > > Thoughts? > > I think this fits perfectly. I'm willing to set this forth as a policy, > which reminds me. On our website, under participate, we need a section > for current policies, this being one of them, the package naming being > another, etc... > > -- > 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
