On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:20 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > So in the RHL space, the choice was clear. Backport whenever possible. > 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? If we want to be > transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does. Every time we've decided to upgrade a package instead of backporting security fixes, we've broken other stuff and have had to work twice as hard to get things back into working order. I don't think we have the resources to upgrade packages. Backporting is a lot less work... Marc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
