On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 11:54:27AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 17:42 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > I think we're arguing on the same side. We all want to look > > forward with our packaging. And freezing upgrades on legacy > > releases will only make packagers spend more time with old stuff > > (backporting security fixes) that will then be missed with ongoing > > stuff. Even in the ideal situation of 2 current and 2 legacy > > releases you end up maintaining 3 versions of a package. And right > > now we are still far from 2 legacy releases (we're at 5). > > Ok, here's the source of our problem. You've assumed that security > fixes have to be backported. Nowhere is this / should this be said. Well, it was suggested on this thread and wasn't outruled (yet). > I'm perfectly fine with doing package UPgrades to fix a security > issue. I just don't want to see upgrades just for the sake of > upgrades. Upgrades should happen only to resolve a security issue. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpUfE5dTz1m0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
