Matěj Cepl wrote:
> This is actually your personal opinion AFAIK, right?
No, it's what updates-testing is for.
> I tend to disagree with this -- one example which seems to me legitimate
> is when I create a new package (I remember I came to this conclusion with
> both PSPP and nimbus-theme) then I sometimes push it into Fedora-[n-1]
> just for updates-testing, because I really don't have enough computers to
> do real testing on older distros.
Who gives a darn? If nobody complains about any issues, just push it! In 99%
of cases, what works fine on Fedora n will work fine on Fedora n-1, too. If
I push a test update to multiple Fedora releases, I always push it to stable
for all affected releases at the same time. The only time it went wrong is
when I pushed something built by another packager who screwed up the
%{?fedora} conditionals (he used "%{?fedora}" string comparisons which broke
for 9 vs. 10, you have to use 0%{?fedora}). That was trivial to fix in the
next push.
> By that, people who really want it, can take it and they are implicitly
> warned that this is not meant to be stable (generally speaking, I guess,
> people who follow updates-testing has to survive some amount of breakage),
> but it is not thrown on unsuspecting users of stable.
The problem is, this mindset makes it harder to get people to test things
which ARE headed for stable (which is what updates-testing is for!), because
enabling updates-testing will include a lot of stuff which is not going
stable any time soon. (And selective updates are not the answer, they're a
big can of worms and have caused all sorts of breakage in KDE SIG's
experience.)
Now OK, new packages are not really going to be a problem there, but as new
packages have to be explicitly installed anyway, I don't see what pushing
them to stable can break.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
