Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?
Tres Seaver
tseaver at palladion.com
Mon May 15 19:53:03 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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.
>
> Flames? Thoughts?
- -1 to preferring upgrades. FL is about 'stability', which is an
explicit non-goal for FC. Except in cases where a backport is more
likely to create instability than an upgrade, we should prefer backporting.
Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEaNwf+gerLs4ltQ4RAi+HAKCS4ndoHA8hkicsUMwIwmZJH4t7dACfZzUp
wGPYc9TXtwNXeTYu/G8/9L0=
=K3Rd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the fedora-legacy-list
mailing list