Op vrijdag 29-05-2009 om 14:21 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Richard W.M. Jones: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: > > - Packages in group 1 are always in sync among the different branches > > (there may be a small delay to test changes, but eventually the > > changes should to applied to all branches) > > Do we really want to keep updating older branches at all? Could we > have a policy which says we'll put new development effort into the > devel/ branch, and effectively freeze the previous branches? The > freeze would only be broken if (a) there was a necessary security > update or (b) someone files a BZ to get a package backported. I feel > this would mean less work all round for packagers.
I think we need to keep packages in that group on older branches up to date. More recent versions of packages in that group may be required to get other packages compiled on older branches. In the past I've had compilation issues with gtk2 because the installed version of w32api was too old. I'm fairly sure such situations will occur again in the future so that's why I'm proposing to keep this group of packages up to date. > > - Packages in group 2 are always in sync with the native version > > of each branch > > Also have a look at Dan's tools for tracking native/MinGW > versions: > > http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/compare Thanks for the link. I might create a cronjob of it so that it frequently sends a mail to this list indicating the packages which should be updated. Regards, Erik van Pienbroek _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
