Pete Walter wrote: > Pavel Alexeev <forum <at> hubbitus.com.ru> writes: >> May be in next time? What disadvantages you are seen proceed with that >> update? Do you try test it? > > No, I did not test this. And here's a few reasons why I think this > shouldn't be pushed: > > - You are forcing others to do work they otherwise wouldn't need to > do. Why do you want me to test ImageMagick functionality in 57 > dependant packages? Fix your security bugs and leave other > packages alone. F16 is supposed to be stable. > > - A major ImageMagick update that introduces new features and new code > invalidates the QA that has gone into the packages that use > ImageMagick. > > - Needless update churn. We have the Stable Updates Policy for a > reason. Do you development on rawhide and let stable Fedora > release be stable. > > - The soname bump breaks third party packages that use ImageMagick > libraries. An example is 'transcode' from rpmfusion. > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy explicitly says that such > ABI bumps are left to the discretion of FESCO and the packager. Have > you already asked FESCO for their blessing? > > "Note that you should open this dialog _BEFORE_ you build or push updates." > > > Pete > Just to be fair there was a mail to this mailing list, where he described his plans. [1] Also I think he did the major part of the work and if it's fine for him, I don't really see a problem. I mean of course it could be better and he could also bump the releases of all the newer fedora versions, but I think there is not so much work for the package maintainers left. I don't want to argue in favor of the whole upgrade but I think the criticism is a bit too harsh. Johannes [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-May/167462.html -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
