On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Timo Teras <timo.te...@iki.fi> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:57:25 -0500 > Matthew Jordan <mjor...@digium.com> wrote: > >> Thus: consider 12.3.2 as a complete replacement for 12.3.1. If I could >> remove all traces of 12.3.1 (and its companions), I would. Alas, >> that's ... really hard ... so it is what it is. >> >> Sorry for the confusion - > > This is bad for distro maintainers. We have automated systems that > either pick all or one of the patches. And having one-off exceptions > like this is really causing more problems than solving.
Which distros do that? Why not grab the full tarball each time a new release is issued? I know that's what Fedora does, and I'm pretty sure that's what Debian/Ubuntu does. Sure, there's some bandwidth savings, but dealing with issues like this, or patches that won't apply for other reasons just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, especially for distro maintainers where the bandwidth savings of downloading one patch file vs a whole tarball is completely swamped one the binary packages are produced. -- Jeff Ollie -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
