[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Heads up openssl-0.9.8j in rawhide



Bill Nottingham <notting redhat com> writes:
> Tomas Mraz (tmraz redhat com) said: 
>>> - a compatiblity openssl098g package?
>> I do not see a real need for such package except the third party
>> software support. We do not do compatibility packages for many other
>> important libraries either. But if anyone wants to maintain it feel free
>> to submit it for review and cc-me on the bugzilla entry, I will happily
>> review it.

> I'm just wondering if it's worth it even just as a crutch-to-keep-rawhide
> -functional in cases like these. Aside from that, I guess the only other
> reason to have it is for software built on F9/F10. There's certainly some
> of that, but I don't know how much.

Well, we build compatibility packages routinely for RHEL releases, but
I recall having been told there was an explicit policy against it in
Fedora releases, on the grounds that Fedora software should be
up-to-date.

(This was some time ago, though --- if there is a policy it might
have changed?)

Considering how often we force mass rebuilds for toolchain or other
low-level changes, it's hard to believe that a compatibility package
for application-library changes is going to be worth much for long.

			regards, tom lane


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]