On 10/19/2015 05:08 PM, Richard Brown wrote:
On 19 October 2015 at 23:03, Greg Freemyer
wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Claudio Freire
wrote: So, if your limiting your scope to just those sort of packages, you just need to persuade the maintainers to push the changes as maintenance updates..which should be easy to do, its less work for them than building and maintaining whole new repos at least ;)
In that sense I guess you're right, but maintainers haven't been doing that.
Perhaps, as you say, they should just do that.
Last I knew, an update could only be pushed if there was an open bugzilla it was addressing.
That is one reason I know I haven't pushed routine updates via the update channel.
Please clarify what the desired maintainer behavior is when a new leaf package release is available, but there are no reported bugs against the old release.
I think your understanding of the situation is correct, our maintenance workflow requires bugs to be reported - but if there are no bug reported, then Claudios example doesn't fit ;)
Or to put it another, plain english way
Package Updates to fix reported bugs - OK for Leap
Package Updates 'just because its newer' - Tumbleweed
With those two (existing) options, I still don't see the need for additional repos :)
Because not every one thinks that two sizes fit all use cases. Anyway, the hole discussion is somewhat pointless. Those maintainers that want to provide newer packages for Leap can do so by simply adding Leap as a build target. Those that don't simply will not. There are plenty of packages where it makes sense to have newer versions on top of a stable base without having to live with a complete rolling stack. I maintain a number of those and none of them have been submitted to Leap by me nor do I have any intention to do so. The two sizes fits all argument is simply not true, no matter how often it gets repeated. Later, Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo