On 26.11.2007 09:54, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:40:26AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> If there are no other way around that, yes, then it IMHO is allowed, if >> you make sure other packages that depend on your ABI get updated/rebuild >> the same time. Ohh, and sending out a "heads up" to users and developers >> beforehand and when the update actually hits the proper repos as well >> would be good. > This seems to be a bit dangerous, in case a new version of the dependent > software or library is needed for th enew API. Otherwise said this could > lead to a forced update of the other packages that depend on that > library. This seems to me to be quite problematic, and not something we > should do.
Sure it's dangerous and problematic -- but it's IMHO still way better then to not ship a package just for hypothetical situation where a major update might be the only way forward if a security issues comes up. Besides: if we want to update for non-security reasons we can provide compat packages as well, which should solve parts of the problem. CU knurd _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
