Backporting policy

[Charles R. Anderson]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:28:04PM +0000, Christian Pearce wrote:
> Interesting.  I backported ethereal yesterday, even though RHL9 was
> an upgrade.  I can't believe they did that.  I generated a patch
> myself from CVS.  I believe everything works fine, I still need QA
> and testing to be done.

I think it is a myth that all Red Hat updates are backports.  Ethereal
has always been upgraded rather than backported:

ethereal-0.9.11-0.90.1.src.rpm
ethereal-0.9.13-1.90.1.src.rpm
ethereal-0.9.16-0.90.1.src.rpm
ethereal-0.10.0a-0.90.1.src.rpm

I actually preferred this for ethereal, since I like getting the new
features :)  Also, API changes are not really a concern with ethereal.