On Mon, 15 May 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
So in the RHL space, the choice was clear. Backport whenever possible. However the Fedora landscape is different. "Upstream" Core does not do backporting, they more often than not version upgrade to resolve security issues. Why should Legacy be any different? If we want to be transparent to end users we should follow what "upstream" does.
My opinion here is: do whichever is the easiest. In some cases, doing a backport may be easier than upgrade [*]. One should also look at the approach chosen by other Fedora Core/RHEL releases. Other things being equal, prefer backporting.
[*] For example: if you'd need to upgrade a package with a lot of dependencies which might need to be re-spun as well; or if the result would be a significant upgrade, getting assurance that the package would work, spec file updates required etc. could be significant work.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
