Package update policy

[Erik van Pienbroek]

Op vrijdag 29-05-2009 om 14:21 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Richard
W.M. Jones:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> > - Packages in group 1 are always in sync among the different branches
> >   (there may be a small delay to test changes, but eventually the
> >    changes should to applied to all branches)
> 
> Do we really want to keep updating older branches at all?  Could we
> have a policy which says we'll put new development effort into the
> devel/ branch, and effectively freeze the previous branches?  The
> freeze would only be broken if (a) there was a necessary security
> update or (b) someone files a BZ to get a package backported.  I feel
> this would mean less work all round for packagers.

I think we need to keep packages in that group on older branches up to
date. More recent versions of packages in that group may be required to
get other packages compiled on older branches.

In the past I've had compilation issues with gtk2 because the installed
version of w32api was too old. I'm fairly sure such situations will
occur again in the future so that's why I'm proposing to keep this group
of packages up to date.

> > - Packages in group 2 are always in sync with the native version
> >   of each branch
> 
> Also have a look at Dan's tools for tracking native/MinGW
> versions:
> 
> http://hg.et.redhat.com/cgi-bin/hg-misc.cgi/fedora-mingw--devel/file/tip/compare

Thanks for the link. I might create a cronjob of it so that it
frequently sends a mail to this list indicating the packages which
should be updated.

Regards,

Erik van Pienbroek