??????????? ??????casper@meteor.dp.ua schrieb am 06.09.2013 um 19:05 in
Nachricht 1378487147.18073.75.camel@casper-hp.friendin.net:
В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 09:31 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount пишет:
--On Friday, September 06, 2013 7:05 PM +0300 Покотиленко Костик casper@meteor.dp.ua wrote:
I'm not complaining. I'm looking for a better way of upstream -> end-user.
What I was trying to tell was: if openldap team could backport fixes (without new features) to old versions - then distributors could update packages not breaking their policy.
The thing is that I see clear split to conservative anti-distro point - "compile yourself" and distro-oriented "stay with bugs".
I don't think you understand software versionsing:
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
There is no reason for distributions not to update to a later patch level.
"backporting" fixes inside a release makes no sense.. it is still the 2.4 release.
The reason is that openldap's PATCH component includes new features (that by itself introduces new bugs) rather than only FIXES to existing features. This breaks disto's policy and this is the point.
So maybe what's missing is a definition what qualifies as MAJOR version, MINOR version, and PATCH (plus the policy enforcement to comply with the definitions).
(Non-native English, I hope I used the correct words)
Regards, Ulrich