Filepro Version 5.0.15

[Fairlight]

>From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Jay Ashworth shouted:
> 
> I'm not entirely clear on why .15 required the oss... but I will say
> that I concur with Scott and Brian: I too believe it reasonable for an
> application not to require a OS patch for a point release, especially
> one that's a bugfix.  This is one of the reasons why release managers
> are expected to feature freeze older releases at some point: so that
> all later point releases *are* bugfix only release -- because I *don't*
> think it's unreasonable for feature releases to require such upgrade.
> 
> But those should be 5.x upgrades, not 5.x.y upgrades.

And ya know, I ordinarily agree.  Actually, I -do- agree.

I think the explanation though lies in the timeframe between releases.
They had problems with RH9 and had to switch to dynamic linking, at least
for a while, back between 5.0.9 and 5.0.10, for example.  

When you release versions that far apart (.15 was like over a year delayed
from its intended release from what I remember, and longer still past .14),
well operating systems move on, I'm sorry.  That's what happens when you
move slowly in the middle of a fast-moving field.

Unfortunately, the users end up paying the price for that in convenience
loss.  But what are you gonna do?

And man, if you think -that- is bad, then avoid PHP like the plague.  They
release a bugfix patch, and of course it's a beast to build.  But a week
later they released a patch for the broken patch and said (apparently, in
essence), "Oh, what the hell, we're putting out a new version, let's
include the latest PCRE interpreter!"  Which happened in a .x.y release
bump of one, in a bugfix release, and -broke- the way it built with
existing .spec files for rpm.

mark->