On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >I'm somewhat torn though. It's one thing to not update something that > >provides an API to other programs, but maybe less of an issue to update > >a client only program -- something like freehoo (CLI Yahoo messenger > >client) which is something I would hate to see stuck at a really old > >version just because it's against policy to update it. > > I think there's a good case for a distinction between "top-level" > packages (like freehoo) and those that other packages depend on as you > say. And there's precedent for that in RHEL too, given that RHEL 5.2 has > a firefox 3 beta for instance. >
Well put, Paul. Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective. I would like to think we can make this as open as possible (no rules yet) and defer to the judgment of individual package maintainers when deciding whether a rebase or backport is the way to go. Generally those closest to the code know which change is best -- they will just need to be prepared with an answer that is better than, "I was too lazy to backport" if they cause a lot of problems for users when rebasing. -andy _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
