On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 16:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 2010/9/20 MichaÅ Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade. > > It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool > > > You understand that what you have just describe is not easily wrapped > into a self-consistent policy right? There are undoubtably "strange > problems" one one sort of another which impact "niche users" across > the existing packagescape and backports to address their problems > would not meet any reasonable definition that relied on the > anticipated desires of "most users." Every conceivable possible > update will most likely solve a problem for someone. You haven't > really sketched out a policy by which any reasonable person or persons > could judge suitability of a particular potential update and exclude > it from such a backports repository. The Mandriva policy is a reasonable starting point: http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy it's sketchy and not greatly written, but the basic idea is that backports should only be 'leaf' packages (things on which nothing else depends) and libs required _only_ by the packages that are being backported. Packages on which other, unrelated packages depend shouldn't be backported. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
