Backporting policy

[Jesse Keating]

On Tuesday 06 January 2004 23:55, Axel Thimm wrote:
> The latter method is something most external repos do. For instance
> ATrpms provides upgraded, not backported (!) versions of rpm, yum and
> apt for RH7.3 upwards. Again I don't think that should be legacy's
> mode of operation. I expect highly conservative methods
> here. Otherwise you could just as good submit packages to ATrpms.

Backporting has been the goal since day 1 for previous RHL releases.  FC 
releases is still in the air.  RH will not focus so much on backports 
for FC updates, rather they'll go the route of new packages.  How 
should Legacy respond to this?

As for RHL releases, backporting is absolutely the goal.  

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040107/87b3d1c1/attachment.sig>