<div class="gmail_quote">On 21 May 2010 19:51, Paul W. Frields <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stickster@gmail.com">stickster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 09:36:11AM +0545, Drak wrote:<br>
> Off-topic maybe: What is the policy to using vendor fixes that have not<br>
> yet been released?<br>
> Drak<br>
<br>
</div>Good question, Drak. I think it's acceptable for us to include<br>
patches in a RPM that are backported fixes expected to be in the next<br>
upstream release. This happens frequently in the kernel, for example,<br>
especially where Fedora contributors are providing said patches. The<br>
goal is always to reduce those fixes/patches to zero, or as close to<br>
zero as possible.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>What is the procedure for letting you guys know the packaging requirements? Is there something we can add to our continuous integration process? We could build it automatically... </div>
<div><br></div><div>Drak </div></div>