Re: Antw: Re: Log service time?

[Покотиленко Костик <casper@meteor.dp.ua>]

Ð ÐÑÐ, 06/09/2013 Ð 15:24 +0200, Jens Vagelpohl ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 14:05, ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÑÑÐÐ <casper@meteor.dp.ua> wrote:
> 
> > Ð ÐÑÐ, 06/09/2013 Ð 04:42 -0700, Howard Chu ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> >> It is Project policy to only investigate issues in the current release. There 
> >> is no sense in tracing back thru old code whose bugs have already been fixed.
> > 
> > This means old versions are not supported and makes problems with
> > openldap distribution packages as distributions don't update upstream
> > versions inside distribution version. :(
> > 
> > For Debian that means staying with bugs for >2 years. It's hard to call
> > this policy "right".
> 
> You're complaining in the wrong place. How about complaining about the <insert your favorite Linux distribution here> policy to not track the OpenLDAP releases closely? 
> 
> You seem to think if a Linux distribution releases a certain old OpenLDAP version then it's the OpenLDAP maintainers' job to support that version as long as the distribution ships it. That's pretty unfair to the OpenLDAP maintainers. They had no say in the distribution's decision to ship the old version. Think about it.

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".

If it's possible to find a compromise - everybody will benefit, isn't
it?