Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
mkkp4x4 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 21 00:21:48 UTC 2010
2010/9/21 Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com>:
> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com>:
>> Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
> Another repository/branch inside Fedora infrastructure does not
> automatically avoid the any of the potential problems that you would
> want to lump into "repo fragmentation." You'd have to take great care
> in crafting packing policy to prevent any repository interaction
> problems concerning dependency chains, conflicts,obsoletes, parallel
> installation, upgrade paths, etc.
>> Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> Define cool.
Firefox 4, Postgres 9, Cherokee 2, OpenOffice 4, Duke Nukem Forever
> Does this mean that uncool updates would be excluded as
> a matter of policy?
Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade.
> I'm not sure we all live in a world where a PostgreSQL 9 backport is _cool_.
It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool
More information about the devel