On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:09 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 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? You pressure the SC to rebuild against 1.2.4 in Fedora, IMO. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
