Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:20 -0400, 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.

Every time we've decided to upgrade a package instead of backporting
security fixes, we've broken other stuff and have had to work twice as
hard to get things back into working order.

I don't think we have the resources to upgrade packages. Backporting is
a lot less work...

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/20060515/b110a6fe/attachment.sig>