On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 22:35 +0100, drago01 wrote: > To keep it in sync with upstream, if a update does not hurt end user > (fix small bugs, add features etc) there is no reason to hold it > unless it breaks something. > For example this update allows the user to see if the wireless card > really runs in 802.11n mode (legacy tools like iwconfig does not know > about it). > > Sure I should have mentioned this in the text, but for a package with > small changes like this I just bump the release from time to time. > (And no I do not push it once upstream releases a new version but I > just resync with upstream from time to time). Had you put that information in, users of updates-testing could actually report whether that change was successful or not, given the wide variety of wireless drivers out there that people are using. Is that not useful feedback for upstream? Maybe something in our kernels isn't enabled for this to work, or some other distro specific side effect. If the users don't know what to expect/test, how can they ever provide relevant feedback? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
