On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 02:29 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Marc Deslauriers wrote: > >>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. > > Yes, this is why I didn't suggest changing Legacy policy for the > majority of cases, but rather the rare cases like gaim and ethereal > where nothing else depends on it, or it maintains a forward compatible > ABI. It is simply a waste of time to backport patches to these programs > when they have their weekly security hole when nobody cares about their > version. I agree. I usually just rebuild the FC packages for those... 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
