Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 16:14 -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> 
> 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... 

Odd, it would seem the opposite in most occasions to me.  We've broken
stuff on RHL releases sure, and even maybe FC1/2, but what about 3, and
coming 4, and such?  If we were better at checking broken deps and
whatnot, would it not be easier to bump package A, respin B and C if
necessary, then beating head on desk for a good long time trying to work
out a backport when there is no backport available (like when our
package version doesn't match any of the close RHELs to steal from?)

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- 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/20060515/2412d259/attachment.sig>