Jud Craft wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:35 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: >>> Why do we not force updates to Fedora X to always be N-V-R older than >>> Fedora X+1? We can use the Release tag to enforce this within a >>> Version, and newer Versions shouldn't appear in older Fedora's until >>> they've been in the newer Fedora first. >> Your suggest would lead to not allowing F10's package versions to /ever/ >> be newer than what Fedora 11 ships with at GA. >> > > Question! > > Why not force them to be "N-V" older, then? Wouldn't that still allow > for security updates? (I assumed security updates were the > minor-point-number -R packages). > > So in essence, the F9 packages are set in stone when F10 is released, > except for minor patches. No new versions. > We don't currently demand backporting skills from our maintainers. Upgrading to a newer upstream release that fixes a problem is a valid strategy. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
