On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 09:14 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > On the other hand, I do believe we don't have resources to create > these backported patches ourselves. When such are not available, > upgrading the package should be considered. In particular I note that > we should apply such a policy even more to the FC1 and FC2 packages. > > So, I think the good rules of thumb are: > 1) if there is already QA'd patch backport, use that; > 2) if not, consider upgrading the package to a version that: > a) has easier access to already QA'd patches or > b) has been maintained by official FC updates, so > RPM versioning with upgrades (e.g., FC2 -> FC3) doesn't > break. I don't agree with this. It's a lot easier to backport a patch than to upgrade to a newer version and break a whole bunch of other stuff. (Of course, there are exceptions, like gaim, ethereal, etc.). Everytime we've updated a version in the past, we've broken a lot more than when we've backported a patch. Marc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
