Worthless updates

[Marcela Maslanova]

In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.

There are more worthless updates, so you should send some general 
proposal for all packages or even better stop thread about
worthless updates/stable-testing updates. Thank you.

----- "Jon Masters" <jonathan at jonmasters.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update,
> but
> > > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So
> these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this
> update
> > > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this? 
> Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> 
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix
> serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it
> is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will
> die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 
> > the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> > 
> > 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as
> per 
> > the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include:
> new 
> > pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> > 
> > 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue
> bugfix 
> > updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
> 
> Far better and more predictable. Even better would be to explicitly
> call
> out the security updates in to a separate repo feed like $other
> distros.
> The packages are the same (not a separate buildroot - I realize there
> are non-trivial dependency issues) in my utopia, but they're easily
> distinguished from non-security related features.
> 
> As it is, I agree with various blog postings by people here over the
> last few days. I very rarely update my (non world facing) Fedora
> systems
> these days unless I know I can reboot and have time to fix things. I
> have rawhide systems for rawhide but I know if they break I can just
> fix
> them later because they're not needed to get other stuff done and I
> can
> always use another VM, or whatever. The point is, one expects rawhide
> to
> "break", but one does not expect stable to break.
> 
> This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and
> does
> expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
> predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates
> are
> necessary and won't break systems.
> 
> Jon.
> 
> 
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel