Update ImageMagick in Fedora 16
johannes.lips at googlemail.com
Mon Jun 4 17:37:47 UTC 2012
Pete Walter wrote:
> Pavel Alexeev <forum <at> hubbitus.com.ru> writes:
>> May be in next time? What disadvantages you are seen proceed with that
>> update? Do you try test it?
> No, I did not test this. And here's a few reasons why I think this
> shouldn't be pushed:
> - You are forcing others to do work they otherwise wouldn't need to
> do. Why do you want me to test ImageMagick functionality in 57
> dependant packages? Fix your security bugs and leave other
> packages alone. F16 is supposed to be stable.
> - A major ImageMagick update that introduces new features and new code
> invalidates the QA that has gone into the packages that use
> - Needless update churn. We have the Stable Updates Policy for a
> reason. Do you development on rawhide and let stable Fedora
> release be stable.
> - The soname bump breaks third party packages that use ImageMagick
> libraries. An example is 'transcode' from rpmfusion.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy explicitly says that such
> ABI bumps are left to the discretion of FESCO and the packager. Have
> you already asked FESCO for their blessing?
> "Note that you should open this dialog _BEFORE_ you build or push updates."
Just to be fair there was a mail to this mailing list, where he
described his plans. 
Also I think he did the major part of the work and if it's fine for him,
I don't really see a problem. I mean of course it could be better and he
could also bump the releases of all the newer fedora versions, but I
think there is not so much work for the package maintainers left.
I don't want to argue in favor of the whole upgrade but I think the
criticism is a bit too harsh.
More information about the devel