Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Tomas Mraz (tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> - a compatiblity openssl098g package? >> I do not see a real need for such package except the third party >> software support. We do not do compatibility packages for many other >> important libraries either. But if anyone wants to maintain it feel free >> to submit it for review and cc-me on the bugzilla entry, I will happily >> review it. > I'm just wondering if it's worth it even just as a crutch-to-keep-rawhide > -functional in cases like these. Aside from that, I guess the only other > reason to have it is for software built on F9/F10. There's certainly some > of that, but I don't know how much. Well, we build compatibility packages routinely for RHEL releases, but I recall having been told there was an explicit policy against it in Fedora releases, on the grounds that Fedora software should be up-to-date. (This was some time ago, though --- if there is a policy it might have changed?) Considering how often we force mass rebuilds for toolchain or other low-level changes, it's hard to believe that a compatibility package for application-library changes is going to be worth much for long. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
