Re: Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 16:14 -0400, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > > Every time we've decided to upgrade a package instead of backporting > security fixes, we've broken other stuff and have had to work twice as > hard to get things back into working order. > > I don't think we have the resources to upgrade packages. Backporting is > a lot less work... Odd, it would seem the opposite in most occasions to me. We've broken stuff on RHL releases sure, and even maybe FC1/2, but what about 3, and coming 4, and such? If we were better at checking broken deps and whatnot, would it not be easier to bump package A, respin B and C if necessary, then beating head on desk for a good long time trying to work out a backport when there is no backport available (like when our package version doesn't match any of the close RHELs to steal from?) -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Fedora Legacy Announce] [Fedora Config] [PAM] [Fedora General Discussion] [Big List of Linux Books] [Gimp] [Free Internet Dating] [Yosemite Questions]