Do we need an upgrade policy for OCaml packages in Fedora releases?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

We've got requests such as this one (upgrade lablgtk to 2.10.0 in Fedora 8):

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424821
and a related one from Peter Lemenkov to support mldonkey.

As I commented in that BZ, if we do that upgrade then at least 4 
dependent packages need to be rebuilt as well.  Furthermore anyone 
writing their own software on F8 which used any of these packages would 
need to at least recompile.

On the other hand I took the opportunity this week to upgrade several 
packages in Rawhide (including lablgtk 2.10.0).  That shouldn't be a 
problem because we expect Rawhide to break things.

So I wonder if we need a policy that once a version of Fedora has been 
released, we don't upgrade packages on a whim, but only if there is a 
serious need (eg. security or some otherwise unresolvable bug).

What do people think?  I don't want to be too restrictive.  If people 
don't mind recompiling that's another matter.  Perhaps we should only 
have this policy for the base OCaml package and some other "vital" 
packages (eg. findlib) and leave the decision on a case-by-case basis 
for other packages?

Rich.

-- 
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom.  Registered in
England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3237 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ocaml-list/attachments/20080216/aff2418a/attachment.bin>