Sam Kuper wrote:
Okay, so if I understand you correctly, a backport is a kind of
refactoring: the overt functionality doesn't change, but the
underlying functionality does (the refactored code is more secure, or
less memory intensive, or what-have-you depending on the nature of the
fix). I hadn't previously quite been sure that backports really are
intended to *not change the overt functionality*.
The idea with backporting is you only backport the particular patch
necessary to close the security hole or fix the bug, not any other
patches/code changes that have occured since your release version. So
yes the idea is to make the minimum change necessary to fix the bug, and
it shouldn't change the functionality of the program.
So now I'm confused: which is the better approach for me to take?
Also, why would a maintainer be maintaining unofficial backports
instead of (or as well as) official ones?
With thanks in advance for your advice!
Sam
Probably better to take the maintainer's advice as he knows more about
it than I do. I was just saying that when I've been in this situation,
whether on Redhat, Debian or other distros I usually take the more
updated package from the next in-development version of the distro. I
haven't had many problems with this, but as always YMMV, good luck.
Tim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
