Ð sre, 25. 05. 2005. Ñ 10:55 -0500, Philip Molter ÐÐÐÐÑÐ:
> I'm personally in favor of expanding the patch policy to fix trivial
> bugs in addition to security bugs. Trivial bug patches can be open to
> discussion, of course ("I'm sorry, but this patch changes too much
> behavior to be accepted"), but they shouldn't be outright denied simply
> because the issue they fix isn't solely security-related.
Spot on, Philip. But, here we heard arguments from actual package
maintainers that the existing policy is sufficient. OK, so if they are
fine, who are we to complain? :)
So you say nay.
One thing though. As I understand it, the release cappability dealing
with the hardware and software is "locked" to EOL for that release. Only
security releases may step forward. But what about a new hardware that
emerged since the EOL? Say, I get a faulty piece of HW on my server, but
must I be very cautious with the replacement, because I may end with no
support for it. I can always build the custom package, but then I have
to say farewell to the legacy thingy. Or should I trash the whole system
altogether with the malfunctioned object and go fot the latest HW/SW
wizz?
As I recall, even Red Hat has occasionally granted "leaps" in versions
for even critical packages, like kernel, in their errata. What a joy
that has been for people struggling with the problems I mentioned above.
--
Igor NestoroviÄ
Home Page: http://jung.ekof.bg.ac.yu
ICQ UIN: 31079000
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: =?iso-8859-5?Q?=BE=D2=DE?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=F8=D5?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=D4=D5=DE?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=DF=DE=E0=E3=DA=D5?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=E1=D0?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=D4=D8=D3=D8=E2=D0=DB=DD=D8=DC?= =?iso-8859-5?Q?_=DF=DE=E2=DF=D8=E1=DE=DC?=
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
