Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Pekka Savola]

On Mon, 15 May 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So in the RHL space, the choice was clear.  Backport whenever possible.
> 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?  If we want to be
> transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does.

My opinion here is: do whichever is the easiest.  In some cases, doing 
a backport may be easier than upgrade [*].  One should also look at 
the approach chosen by other Fedora Core/RHEL releases. Other things 
being equal, prefer backporting.

[*] For example: if you'd need to upgrade a package with a lot of 
dependencies which might need to be re-spun as well; or if the result 
would be a significant upgrade, getting assurance that the package 
would work, spec file updates required etc. could be significant work.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings