On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 08:14, Alex Hudson wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 23:46, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote: > > In Fedora there is a possibility that if there is a patch required that > > the new version will be shipped. > > Why? Where are you getting this from? As far as I can tell, their policy > is not changing (except with respect to Fedora distributing rpms not > maintained by Red Hat). > Do as much of the development work as possible directly in the upstream packages. This includes updates; our default policy will be to upgrade to new versions for security as well as for bugfix and new feature update releases of packages. http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html > > If RH had thrown 2.0.47 out instead of backporting fixes then there > > would be some breakage in some web-based applications. > > Well, certainly Fedora does come with 2.0.47, and only time will tell if > Fedora ship something which breaks the original package. But Apache 2 is > still basically unstable software, so it's not really a very good > example of what might happen in packaging policy. If they break Apache > and it's difficult to backport the fix, what do they do? And in some > instances security fixes require "breaking" something. > > Anyone doing serious things with Apache in a production environment is > far more likely to want to run 1.3, and the updates there are basically > maintainence/security updates. Apache is probably a special case too; in > that most projects have stable/development branches as I said - ASF > would probably dispute that Apache 2.0 is development/unstable code. > The issue of Apache was an example when RedHat were talking about backporting software over shipping new releases. The issue applies to any software which in the future may break binary compatibility between releases. > > With RedHat Linux it was more a case of trusting that RedHat updates > > wouldn't break too many things afterwards- with Fedora this promised > > I don't think you finished your e-mail :D > No, and it should have been with Fedora this isn't promised. -- Regards, Adam Allen. adam [at] dynamicinteraction.co.uk pgp http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=adam%40dynamicinteraction.co.uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part