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

Re: Request for Review: libevent



On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:47:51 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:

> José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> > Paul Howarth wrote:
> >>However... given that rpm 4.2 shipped way back with RH9, and the current
> >>extras system doesn't support anything older than FC3, is this something
> >>that should be done as standard? I personally like to maintain as much
> >>backwards compatibility as possible, but many things in extras seem to
> >>assume that things started with FC3. For instance, the perl module spec
> >>template uses MODULE_COMPAT, which doesn't work with RH9 or older perls.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes it does.  For RH8 and RH9 just install the package
> > perl-forward-compat available in te fedora.us mirrors.
> 
> OK so I picked a bad example. The question remains though, how much 
> backwards-compatibility should extras packages include? I expect it's 
> mostly a decision for each package maintainer, but what should be (are?) 
> the guidelines?

The guideline is: We look forward and focus on the current and next
distribution release. In case there is interest and demand in releasing
and maintaining something for older releases, it would work just fine
to branch/fork in CVS as a last resort.
 


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