-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: > 1, 2, and 3, are totally great points for backport vs upgrade. I > don't even begin to think that upgrading is a better solution. > However I'm going for consistency with what our 'upstream' is > doing. The Fedora project doesn't backport when it isn't easy, > preferring to upgrade. I'm proposing that when we take over > maintenance we do the same, when easy. > Ok, but then how difficult? One person's idea of difficult could be raising a finger to type something. Now we are going to have to define what is considered easy and what is difficult. I do agree we need a fall back option when patching is not easy or fixing the problem is too difficult, but we need to guard against it being the norm. Take what I've done with the FC1 packages I have... most are updates only in as far as the packages have the same major and in most cases minor version numbers as the FC1 counterparts. I have GCC 3.3.6 even though 3.4 and 4.x exist and are available. I just don't see the point in going that far ... granted, GCC 3.3.6 was EOL and unsupported past the point I downloaded and patched into FC1. Believe me, the upgrade was anything but EASY! - -James -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEafDHkNLDmnu1kSkRAtmXAJ9VZlWOXFziK1qq2uirSfG2hda5GACfZqZN PZweidIPMJkkuT9AOkUiBGs= =Q6F/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
