Re: iproute package update policy

Hi, On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:47:25PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full > version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to > stable versions on behalf of bug reports. > > But since stable versions indeed receive

Re: iproute package update policy

On 25 Mar 2016 03:05, "Andrew Clayton" wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:38:09 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez > > wrote: > > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > >> There is no need to call this

Re: iproute package update policy

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:38:09 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez > wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have > >> been valid reasons brought up in this very

Re: iproute package update policy

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:34:46AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:42:24 +0100 > Phil Sutter wrote: > ...snip... > > > So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable > > releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature

Re: iproute package update policy

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Phil Sutter wrote: > >> So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable >> releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature >> requests if there is valid need for it, a

Re: iproute package update policy

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > >> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have been >> valid reasons brought up in this very thread for being somewhat >> conservative. Please refrain from using

Re: iproute package update policy

Josh Boyer wrote: > There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have been > valid reasons brought up in this very thread for being somewhat > conservative. Please refrain from using language that makes the > conversation negative. Please, stay on topic. Could you please

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:42:24 +0100 Phil Sutter wrote: ...snip... > So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable > releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature > requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it >

Re: iproute package update policy

Phil Sutter wrote: > So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable > releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature > requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it > doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK? Does iproute

Re: iproute package update policy

On 2016-03-14 21:42, Phil Sutter wrote: ... So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it doesn't interfere with core functionality.

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:07:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100 > Phil Sutter wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > Thanks for the

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100 Phil Sutter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how > > > that could come to unison

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how that could > > come to unison with the kernel updates applied to stable versions. Any > > new version could break

Re: iproute package update policy

On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote: > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how that could > come to unison with the kernel updates applied to stable versions. Any > new version could break existing functionality (although not intended), > so that "should"

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:03:40PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote: > > > On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > > > Hi,

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 13:36 +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > While this certainly makes sense, I start to wonder what Fedora's > understanding of 'stability' really is if it seems to not cover the > packages (including kernel) it distributes. Does it cover only > anything > else, like e.g. installation

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote: > > On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full > >

Re: iproute package update policy

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote: > On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full > > version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to > >

Re: iproute package update policy

On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote: > Hi, > > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full > version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to > stable versions on behalf of bug reports. > > But since stable versions indeed

iproute package update policy

Hi, So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to stable versions on behalf of bug reports. But since stable versions indeed receive full kernel updates (not just backported patches), there is an