On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:54:36PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>I'm somewhat torn though. It's one thing to not update something that
>provides an API to other programs, but maybe less of an issue to update
>a client only program -- something like freehoo (CLI Yahoo messenger
>client) which is something I would hate to see stuck at a really old
>version just because it's against policy to update it.
I think there's a good case for a distinction between "top-level"
packages (like freehoo) and those that other packages depend on as you
say. And there's precedent for that in RHEL too, given that RHEL 5.2 has
a firefox 3 beta for instance.
Well put, Paul. Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate
candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve
as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay
as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective.
I would like to think we can make this as open as possible (no rules
yet) and defer to the judgment of individual package maintainers when
deciding whether a rebase or backport is the way to go. Generally those
closest to the code know which change is best -- they will just need to
be prepared with an answer that is better than, "I was too lazy to
backport" if they cause a lot of problems for users when rebasing.