| 1 |
+1 |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Steve's ideas are excellent. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
AfC |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 00:35, stephen white wrote: |
| 8 |
> On 12/02/2004, at 11:48 PM, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 9 |
> > with gimp 1.2.5 and then, later on, 1.2.{6,7,8,9} are also released as |
| 10 |
> > 'stable' they would be added into that 2003.4 branch as well? But gimp |
| 11 |
> > 1.3+ would never be added? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yep, that's pretty much it. Some packages have backported security |
| 14 |
> fixes (eg, Linux 2.0 and 2.2 are maintained), so I'd be interested in |
| 15 |
> being able to offload that task onto the authors, or possibly crib from |
| 16 |
> other projects like Debian where the work has already been done. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> For the packages that don't have backported security or bug fixes, it |
| 19 |
> would revert to the prior situation where it just becomes frozen and |
| 20 |
> never updated. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > AxKit 1.6.1 |
| 23 |
> > libxslt 1.0.31 |
| 24 |
> > libxml2 2.5.6 |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> When you first installed those machines, you would have used the |
| 27 |
> current Gentoo versions, eg "x86" rather than a frozen baseline. Hence |
| 28 |
> the issue still exists up to that first checkpoint where you decide "am |
| 29 |
> I going to keep following current or declare the machine |
| 30 |
> 'finished'?"... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> So while you're following current, you would discover those kinds of |
| 33 |
> "2.5.6 works but 2.5.8 doesn't" situations and either pin the package |
| 34 |
> versions or send fixes to the authors so 2.5.9 works again. :) |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Just another perspective. The main intent is to have the structure to |
| 37 |
> be able to take advantage of other groups and projects doing |
| 38 |
> backporting efforts even though we won't be ourselves... |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> steve@×××××××××××××××.au |
Archives