Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net>:

> So in the RHL space, the choice was clear.  Backport whenever possible.

True.

> However the Fedora landscape is different.  "Upstream" Core does not do
> backporting, they more often than not version upgrade to resolve
> security issues.  Why should Legacy be any different?

Only because FL was originally "do no harm" type of philosophy, based on the
idea that people would want stability, for example for servers.

Now, one could argue that one shouldn't use FC for servers, and one shouldn't
expect FC to be stable, and if so, one could say there is no reason to
worry about backporting FC and that one should just upgrade packages.

> If we want to be
> transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does.

Depends on what transparent means.  If you want to be transparent in the
sense of not breaking people's working machines, then no, you should backport.

If you want to be transparent in the the sense of keeping with FC practices,
then yes, you should upgrade instead of backporting.

> Flames?  Thoughts?

No flames, only thoughts, and not very deep thoughts at that.

> --
> Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
> Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
> GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!