В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 15:24 +0200, Jens Vagelpohl пишет: > On Sep 6, 2013, at 14:05, Покотиленко Костик <[email protected]> wrote: > > > В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 04:42 -0700, Howard Chu пишет: > >> It is Project policy to only investigate issues in the current release. > >> There > >> is no sense in tracing back thru old code whose bugs have already been > >> fixed. > > > > This means old versions are not supported and makes problems with > > openldap distribution packages as distributions don't update upstream > > versions inside distribution version. :( > > > > For Debian that means staying with bugs for >2 years. It's hard to call > > this policy "right". > > You're complaining in the wrong place. How about complaining about the > <insert your favorite Linux distribution here> policy to not track the > OpenLDAP releases closely? > > You seem to think if a Linux distribution releases a certain old OpenLDAP > version then it's the OpenLDAP maintainers' job to support that version as > long as the distribution ships it. That's pretty unfair to the OpenLDAP > maintainers. They had no say in the distribution's decision to ship the old > version. Think about it.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking for a better way of upstream -> end-user. What I was trying to tell was: if openldap team could backport fixes (without new features) to old versions - then distributors could update packages not breaking their policy. The thing is that I see clear split to conservative anti-distro point - "compile yourself" and distro-oriented "stay with bugs". If it's possible to find a compromise - everybody will benefit, isn't it?
