Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> said: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > I had thought about these things, but they didn't strike me as a high > > level update type. And for the leaf node packages, when they do break > > it's not as less disruptive as you might think. Leaf node packages > > exist for a reason, they are likely very important to somebody, and if > > that breaks, that's going to be a very big issue for that somebody. > > But if they're outdated, that can also be a big issue. Some leaf packages > are under heavy development, so users don't want to run old versions, nor do > upstream developers want them to. Developers can't always get what they want. Just because Fedora updates to upstream's release-of-the-day doesn't mean Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. have updated (so hopefully upstream is still paying attention to older releases). Most reasonable upstreams I have worked with fully understand that not everybody is running yesterday's release and will work with you if you find a problem with an older release. If an upstream can't handle that, I would say that is the upstream's problem, not Fedora's. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
