Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
mkkp4x4 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 21 09:30:19 UTC 2010
2010/9/21 Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 08:49 +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> Sounds like the only way to package Firefox under such a backport scheme
>> would be to bundle Gecko etc.
> Yup. In MDV, Firefox isn't/wasn't allowed under the backports
> guidelines. I think this makes sense given how important it is and how
> easy it is to break other stuff by touching Firefox. Some stuff just
> isn't right for a backports repo.
It seems to me that backports repo should be treated on a different
basis by developers and users than any other official repos.
I do not expect that it will have the normal technical support. I do
not expect that the installation of package from the will not break
anything. This should be something like "use at your own risk if you
want some newer packages, but do not expect that it will work
completely without any problem with official Fedora repo and other
repos like rpmfusion etc"
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel