Backporting policy

[Christian Pearce]

I am happy with too.  It is different from what I suggested, but I think this criteria is fine.  So ethereal could have been upgraded.  I wonder how often this will happen.  And what is "consensus".  I don't want security updates to drag out because people who don't like this policy in the first place are going to stand in the way.  I guess the guys doing the packaging and the QA have the most say.  Everyone else can pound sand. =)

--
Christian Pearce
http://www.commnav.com



Jesse Keating said:
> 
> On Thursday 08 January 2004 16:00, Warren Togami wrote:
> > I think we should also consider upgrading in cases where all of the
> > following conditions are met:
> > 1) Absolutely zero cases where API changes would effect any
> > distribution OR 3rd party software, because the updated package is a
> > leaf node on the dependency tree.  I suspect screen may be another
> > leaf node. 2) Where having a common %{version} across multiple
> > distributions would make it easier to maintain security updates,
> > because patches need not be ported and tested multiple times.
> > 3) Only by consensus of the list membership.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I think this fits perfectly.  I'm willing to set this forth as a policy, 
> which reminds me.  On our website, under participate, we need a section 
> for current policies, this being one of them, the package naming being 
> another, etc...
> 
> -- 
> Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
> Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
> Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
> GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
>  
> Was I helpful?  Let others know:
>  http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating