Re: Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

So in the RHL space, the choice was clear.  Backport whenever possible.

True.

However the Fedora landscape is different.  "Upstream" Core does not do
backporting, they more often than not version upgrade to resolve
security issues.  Why should Legacy be any different?

Only because FL was originally "do no harm" type of philosophy, based on the
idea that people would want stability, for example for servers.

Now, one could argue that one shouldn't use FC for servers, and one shouldn't
expect FC to be stable, and if so, one could say there is no reason to
worry about backporting FC and that one should just upgrade packages.

If we want to be
transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does.

Depends on what transparent means.  If you want to be transparent in the
sense of not breaking people's working machines, then no, you should backport.

If you want to be transparent in the the sense of keeping with FC practices,
then yes, you should upgrade instead of backporting.

Flames?  Thoughts?

No flames, only thoughts, and not very deep thoughts at that.

--
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

--
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!

--

fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Questions]

  Powered by Linux