On 5 December 2012 15:56, Simo Sorce <simo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:47 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Would that not cause a combinatoric nightmare with having to make sure >> you had a libX11 compiled against say X number of glibc's or other >> libraries that changed in the past so that you had the correct path so >> that SC KDE-4.9 had the correct combination it wants of core stuff and >> SC GNOME-3.9 had the correct combination for it? >> > No you always build against the latest. > > But the older rpms are useful if one collection package has > Requires: foobar = 1.2.3 > > If then core releases foobar 1.2.4 (which is perfectly ABI compatible > and all and wouldn;t really cause issues blah blah blahg) and 1.2.3 is > not also left in the repo the collection becomes uninstallable. What if 1.2.3 had to be upgraded to 1.2.4 because it was a security issue or some similar item. At that point the system can be locked down but not fixed. So either 1.2.3 would need a backported fix or the SC would need to carry its own fixed version. Or am I missing something? -- Stephen J Smoogen. "Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it." Linus Torvalds "Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
