Seems scop said all the important things about the problems with this directfb update already so I like to use this opportunity to comment on something related. Am Samstag, den 13.05.2006, 21:44 +0300 schrieb Ville Skyttä: > [...] > The packages are built for all repos all the way down to FC-3 (an "EOL"d > release). > [...] This (e.g. pushing a [major] version update to FE4, FE5 and devel at the same time) is something I more and more dislike. Even if soname's don't change -- every update bears a risk of breaking stuff (especially updates to a new [major] version). Yes, often it works without problems, but our experience and mails like https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00332.html show that sometimes things simply break now and then. We should do our best to avoid that our users run into such problems. That's one of the reasons why I still would like to have a testing repo where all (or at least the major package updates) hang out some days until they get pushed to the proper repo. And/or a policy (or make it a strong suggestion to packagers) that "[major] version updates should be build for devel first; builds for stable releases shouldn't be done sooner than five days after the devel packages was published". Security-updates of course are outside this scope and should of course be pushed as fast as possible. Just my 2 cent. Other opinions? CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
