libogg and upgrading core packages policy (was: video in the desktop)

[Axel Thimm]

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:39:44AM +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> > > > libogg in Fedora has been at 1.1 since December so that really isn't an
> > > > issue.  libtheora builds just fine against it using the spec from
> > > > atrpms.
> > > 
> > > Above reply referred to "pre-FC2 (FC1 and older)" and included a quote
> > > to make that clear.
> > 
> > No problem, already taken care of for RHL 7.3 to 9 at ATrpms.net.
> 
> My question was specifically "what do we do in fedora.us where in FC1
> and older libogg is already in the base platform but with an older
> version".  Clearly having libogg in ATrpms.net doesn't solve that
> problem so it's not a reply to my question :)

Boils down to three options:

o remain stubborn on "no upgrades to core" (very bad)
o loosen policy to allow upgrades of core packages (very good)
o use ATrpms (the best ;)

Honestly, I don't see a reason for all this "don't upgrade core
packages because you will introduce instability" while at the same
time kernel modules are deployed w/o any hesitation. kernel modules
are upgrades to the kernel even if not technically from rpm's POV, and
such upgrades are far more severe that upgrading libogg.

So make your life easier and simply put the packages there were people
expect them, e.g. not is some obscure patches, alternatives etc.

Or, until all fedora.us parties agree to break this barrier you can
create a forward compatibility package. But that is really a waste of
resources.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040619/a988e02f/attachment.sig>