Re: Antw: Re: Log service time?

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

>>> ??????????? ??????<casper@meteor.dp.ua> schrieb am 06.09.2013 um 19:05 in
Nachricht <1378487147.18073.75.camel@casper-hp.friendin.net>:
> Ð ÐÑÐ, 06/09/2013 Ð 09:31 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>> --On Friday, September 06, 2013 7:05 PM +0300 ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÐÐÐ 
>> ÐÐÑÑÐÐ <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