Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 30 July 2006 20:21, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >>> That's true, and the issue was raised previously that maybe clearer >>> guidelines should be written about what should or should not be updated >>> within the same Fedora release. FC-5 shouldn't "eat babies" like >>> rawhide, yet one expects more than just security updates. So a line must >>> be drawn somewhere. For example, if a new version of gnumeric (or >>> inkscape, or whatever) is out, with bug fixes and new features, by all >>> means it should be released. OTOH, if said new release is not backward >>> compatible with older documents (unlikely of course, but this is just an >>> example), you obviously don't want to update and potentially break >>> someone's documents. I think this is where common sense should come in, >>> and certainly inconvenience to the user base is one of many factors that >>> should come into the decision... >>> >>> -denis >> At the very least, such guidelines would make things clear, would >> probably reducing levels of complaining about such. > > Keep in mind that such guidelines, if ever conceived, would have to apply to > Extras as well, since Extras is a default repository of Fedora and Extras > changes can break other packages within Extras. Trying to set a policy will > take the ability out of the hands of maintainers to issue updates, and > instead a controlling person or persons will have to evaluate each and every > proposed update, slowing the system way down :/ > > In extras we already have a few unwritten rules, for example don't do an soname changing update (or other ABI breakign lib update) except for devel. This doesn't slow things down. There is a difference between having a comittee sanction every update, or having a few guidelines in place, which everybody follows as they see fit, and only when in doubt ask the list. Regards, Hans -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
