On 02/23/2017 02:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most recent
case was discussed on this list even today:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/BVUZWJYW2UVO53EZ2G2ALAQPU5PLDJZR/
That discussion was about Rawhide. Not about a stable release.
True, but the issue is the same. New or changed dependencies cause
problems.
Not quite. This only applies to "weak deps".
How so?
New "strong deps" or "changed deps" are should to solve problems, otherwise
there would not be any need for changes.
"are should to"? Sorry, I can't understand the above sentence.
This was a typo. This should have been:
"New or changed strong deps are supposed to/should solve problems", ...
I.e. new or changed "strong deps" are bug-fixes.
"Weak deps" are a different story. Adding/removing/changing them are
mostly personal preference of a packager. They can cause harm.
The proposed policy change talks about both rawhide and stable branches.
I consider your proposal to be unnecessary.
Could you elaborate on why you think it's unnecessary?
This proposal is rather burdensome with no particular gain.
Exactly. This is a good sentence to summarize what I had wanted to express.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
