On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:38:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:37:44 -0400 > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > For (unreleased) F14, I think that the arugment that future work on > > the package is better off starting with something that works than to > > start off with something that's broken by new gcc, boost, etc is very > > valid. > > Sure. I would suggest fixing the issue and even commiting the fixed > spec, but I don't know that it's worth pushing an update out for. > The problem is that we'd want to know what the ramifications of the update are to the release. What if the fix for the FTBFS causes an ABI break... but it's also the only way to fix the FTBFS within our manpower needs? Better to do that before F14 has shipped than be forced to do that after it has shipped. I can come up with other scenarios that are similar but they're all just about identifying what cascading problems could occur up front rather than defering it to when we have a time-critical update to get out the door. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpUq6ZCrdy6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
