On 16.08.2007 10:39, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> A repo where some packages stay stable while others are updated to the
> latest and greatest is a mix that won't make people happy, as those that
> are those that are interested in a "a stable base" and those that want
> "latest and greatest" both don't get what they want.
On the other hand this is what happens within the base product too. The
desktop apps and treated different from system apps for example.
Could you or somebody else outline the scheme RHEL uses in more detail?
Is it anywhere written down?
You
might want to consider having a policy that differentiates between them.
AFAICS the current RHEL-scheme is similar to what the EPEL policy says
already: If there are very strong reason to update something to a new
major version then go for it with the next quarterly update. But the
bulk of packages doesn't get updates to the latest major version.
Further: I don't think a more detailed "policy" makes sense -- I'd say
we should discuss all "major update: yes or no?" for EPEL on a case by
case basis here on the list. In RHEL I suppose it's similar: a
release-engineer (or whatever the individual or group is called) likely
has to ACK major updates there as well.
CU
knurd