Some Suggestions (Mirror Space, gaim, ethereal, etc)

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 09:14 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On the other hand, I do believe we don't have resources to create 
> these backported patches ourselves.  When such are not available, 
> upgrading the package should be considered.  In particular I note that 
> we should apply such a policy even more to the FC1 and FC2 packages.
> 
> So, I think the good rules of thumb are:
>   1) if there is already QA'd patch backport, use that;
>   2) if not, consider upgrading the package to a version that:
>      a) has easier access to already QA'd patches or
>      b) has been maintained by official FC updates, so
>         RPM versioning with upgrades (e.g., FC2 -> FC3) doesn't
>         break.

I don't agree with this. It's a lot easier to backport a patch than to
upgrade to a newer version and break a whole bunch of other stuff. (Of
course, there are exceptions, like gaim, ethereal, etc.).

Everytime we've updated a version in the past, we've broken a lot more
than when we've backported a patch.

Marc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050724/4fb60bad/attachment.sig>