Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Whether it would be a separate backports repo or merely some more
> conservativeness in our update stream
FWIW, for stuff like KDE, if we don't allow new feature upgrades even in the
current stable release nor support an official backports repo, an unofficial
one will no doubt spring up, or an existing unofficial repo will pick up
that role (for KDE, kde-redhat stable would probably be revived, currently
it's mostly empty for Fedora as the kind of stuff which would be in there is
usually just pushed as official Fedora updates).
I would argue having this within Fedora infrastructure would be better as it
would prevent proliferation of third-party repos replacing Fedora packages
and the resulting compatibility issues (see e.g. the chaos we're having for
RHEL with third-party repositories replacing official packages with newer
versions and the resulting dependency hell) and as it would also provide a
place for new versions of less commonly-used applications.
That said, IMHO the best solution is still to have this stuff in the
official updates. But it's true that the kind of issues some users are
having with KDE 4.4 are unfortunate. This particular Akonadi issue hasn't
shown up during testing or it would have been considered a blocker.
But I think having yet another thread about update policies will be frowned
upon by the moderators. Instead, let's please think about repairing this
breakage now that it happened, i.e. get bug reports filed etc.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
