7:19 a.m.
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted with
the latest version in upstream?
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.me/callkalpa
7:33 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Matej Cepl <mcepl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2013-06-03, 12:19 GMT, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
Could you elaborate a bit on the particular situation? Why wouldn't you
go with the latest upstream?
It's always better to go with the latest version unless in an exceptional
case. I just wanted to know whether it is a MUST since it is not clearly
elaborated in the Package Review Guideline [1]
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
Best,
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.me/callkalpa
8:29 a.m.
On 06/03/2013 02:33 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Matej Cepl <mcepl(a)redhat.com
<mailto:mcepl@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 2013-06-03, 12:19 GMT, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
Could you elaborate a bit on the particular situation? Why wouldn't you
go with the latest upstream?
It's always better to go with the latest version unless in an
exceptional case.
In this generality, it's untrue. Apply common sense to decide what to do.
I just wanted to know whether it is a MUST since it is
not clearly elaborated in the Package Review Guideline [1]
Definitely not. As
others already expressed it's a "SHOULD".
It's common sense to find a compromise between what an upstream claims
to be "stable", what users expect and own experience with a package.
Blindly packaging up some unstable, API/UI-breaking an
overzealous/hyper-active "stuff" doesn't help anybody.
Ralf
7:25 a.m.
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:49 +0530, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
with the latest version in upstream?
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.me/callkalpa
It's a SHOULD.
Volker
7:33 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Volker Fröhlich <volker27(a)gmx.at> wrote:
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:49 +0530, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Kalpa Welivitigoda
> Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
> Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
> University of Moratuwa
> Sri Lanka
> http://about.me/callkalpa
It's a SHOULD.
Thanks Volker.
Volker
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.me/callkalpa
7:33 a.m.
On , Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
with the latest version in upstream?
Officially, it is a SHOULD (as pointed out by Volker), practically it is
pretty much consider as a MUST unless there is/are valid reason(s) not
to.
The choice is then left up to the packager and the reviewer.
But I'm Matej here, could you expand why you would not want the latest
version
from upstream?
Pierre
8:10 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou(a)pingoured.fr>wrote:
On , Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
>
Officially, it is a SHOULD (as pointed out by Volker), practically it is
pretty much consider as a MUST unless there is/are valid reason(s) not to.
The choice is then left up to the packager and the reviewer.
Thanks for the explanation
But I'm Matej here, could you expand why you would not want the
latest
version
from upstream?
It's not that I don't want the latest version. I just asked to know how it
is been practised so that it can help me in my reviews.
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://admin...
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.me/callkalpa
10:57 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Kalpa Welivitigoda <callkalpa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted with
the latest version in upstream?
It cannot be. the latest version upstream sometimes includes a major
and invompatible structure with the preivous major release and would
cause compatibility issues with other components. This has happened
repeatedly with Openssl, for example. There may also not be enough
time between the latest upstream release and the Fedora packager's
testing work to even obtain, much less verify, an update.
Latest has to be a goal, not always reachable.
3980
days inactive
3981
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Kalpa Welivitigoda -
Matej Cepl -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Ralf Corsepius -
Volker Fröhlich