State of 7.2/8.0 in Fedora Legacy

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 20 May 2004 15:47, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Wasn't AS 2.1 built off RHL 7.2?  So wouldn't the patches be fairly
> easy to come by in most cases?  I think that was the argument
> before...
>
> No such argument for RHL 8.0 though.  It is different enough that
> backporting patches is non-trivial.

Sortof.  It was built between 7.2 and 7.3, and diverged from there.  Not 
everything is the same.  Base source versions on 7.2 is not always the 
same in RHAS 2.1 and RHL7.3.  This requires patches be backported and 
people QA the packages and test them in updates-testing.  We get almost 
none of that now.

> > Also we can't hit every
> > update, so I would feel not so good about missing some security
> > stuff.
>
> Why not?  I don't think there is anything in 7.2 that isn't in 7.3,
> is there?  And if 7.2 does follow AS 2.1, then it should be pretty
> easy to track...

See reasons above.  Some things are older source versions and need 
backported patches that nobody is willing to do.

> > If we're going to turn off 7.2/8.0 it's going to be complete.  I'd
> > leave the directory trees up there, but nothingmore would be added.
>
> Not arguing that, just think we should discuss both options before we
> decide. My memory is a little vague as to the AS 2.1 tracking though,
> so correct me if I'm wrong..

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040520/c681e54a/attachment.sig>