<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/1/25 Peter Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbrobinson@gmail.com">pbrobinson@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram <<a href="mailto:metherid@gmail.com">metherid@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 01/25/2011 04:11 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> this exact reason. Another classic example of this is updates to<br>
>> openoffice. There have been 10 updates @ 200Mb odd MB each for oo.o<br>
>> since the release of F-14 for such critical bugs as "background isn't<br>
>> transparent" [1] surely these could be bundled together once a month<br>
>> or so (I thought there was suppose to be a policy about this but I<br>
>> can't find it).<br>
><br>
> There isn't any such policy suggesting or requiring bundling of bug<br>
> fixes and trying to mandate it via policy doesn't really seem<br>
> feasible. We could talk to the maintainers in question and understand<br>
> what happened first before trying to stop it. If it isn't a one off<br>
> problem, then it makes sense to discuss it in the broader context.<br>
<br>
</div>The number of updates in a stable release has been discussed, at<br>
length. There was even discussion of implementing a policy for it but<br>
it clearly was never done.<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div></div>another thing that can be done is somehow encouraging the creation of delta rpms, especially for big packages (like ooo). <br><br>