Some Suggestions (Mirror Space, gaim, ethereal, etc)

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 02:29 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> >>So, I think the good rules of thumb are:
> >>  1) if there is already QA'd patch backport, use that;
> >>  2) if not, consider upgrading the package to a version that:
> >>     a) has easier access to already QA'd patches or
> >>     b) has been maintained by official FC updates, so
> >>        RPM versioning with upgrades (e.g., FC2 -> FC3) doesn't
> >>        break.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't agree with this. It's a lot easier to backport a patch than to
> > upgrade to a newer version and break a whole bunch of other stuff. (Of
> > course, there are exceptions, like gaim, ethereal, etc.).
> > 
> > Everytime we've updated a version in the past, we've broken a lot more
> > than when we've backported a patch.
> 
> Yes, this is why I didn't suggest changing Legacy policy for the 
> majority of cases, but rather the rare cases like gaim and ethereal 
> where nothing else depends on it, or it maintains a forward compatible 
> ABI.  It is simply a waste of time to backport patches to these programs 
> when they have their weekly security hole when nobody cares about their 
> version.

I agree. I usually just rebuild the FC packages for those...

Marc.
-------------- 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/20050725/b99c7cda/attachment.sig>