>>> ??????????? ??????<[email protected]> schrieb am 06.09.2013 um 19:05 in Nachricht <[email protected]>: > В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 09:31 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount пишет: >> --On Friday, September 06, 2013 7:05 PM +0300 Покотиленко >> Костик <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 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". >> >> I don't think you understand software versionsing: >> >> MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH >> >> There is no reason for distributions not to update to a later patch level.
>> "backporting" fixes inside a release makes no sense.. it is still the 2.4 >> release. > > The reason is that openldap's PATCH component includes new features > (that by itself introduces new bugs) rather than only FIXES to existing > features. This breaks disto's policy and this is the point. So maybe what's missing is a definition what qualifies as MAJOR version, MINOR version, and PATCH (plus the policy enforcement to comply with the definitions). (Non-native English, I hope I used the correct words) Regards, Ulrich
