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)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

--

fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Questions]
Powered by Linux