Re: Replacing Vendor rpms.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday, 14 September 2006, at 18:26:21 (-0700),
Frank Cusack wrote:

> 1) they pull patches from CVS (gotta be on the bleeding edge all the
> time, you know, nothing else will do) before packages actually get a
> version bump, and/or 2) they generate fixes themselves which later
> make it upstream.  In both cases they then fail to keep pace when
> the upstream version is bumped, probably to "save" maintenance
> effort.

They backport fixes or do them themselves, either way.  Why?  The very
SONAME and shared library issues being discussed in this thread.
That, and because upstream changes can sometimes be too drastic or can
break binary compatibility.

It's a matter of giving ISV's and servers a consistent long-term ABI
to rely on.  Nothing more, nothing less.

And in the case of RH, for the most part, they do a damn good job
keeping things consistent.  Not always, but mostly.

Michael

-- 
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@xxxxxxxxx>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 "I am the one and only; nobody I'd rather be.  I am the one and only.
  You can't take that away from me."                 -- Chesney Hawkes

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Index of Archives]     [RPM Ecosystem]     [Linux Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [IETF Discussion]

  Powered by Linux