diff options
| author | Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org> | 2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org> | 2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000 |
| commit | 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 (patch) | |
| tree | b175f9d5fcb107576dabc768e7bd04d4a3e491a0 /zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html | |
| parent | fa5098cf210b23ab4f419913e28af7b1b07dafb2 (diff) | |
| download | archives-1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0.tar archives-1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0.tar.gz archives-1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0.tar.bz2 archives-1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0.tar.xz archives-1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0.zip | |
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html | 109 |
1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d1abe8d1b --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006090.html @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C201106281443.35743.stormi%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006046.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005978.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal</H1> + <B>Samuel Verschelde</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C201106281443.35743.stormi%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal">stormi at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Tue Jun 28 14:43:35 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006046.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005978.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6090">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6090">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6090">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6090">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE> +Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 02:10:14, Michael Scherer a écrit : +><i> I would also propose a few rules : +</I>><i> +</I>><i> "a package should have been in cauldron since 1 week before being +</I>><i> backported", so we can at least ensure there was a minimal test on it, +</I>><i> Ie, if I package stuff-virtual-manager, I cannot backport it before 1 +</I>><i> week. If we have a package of stuff-virtual-manager since 1 month, and +</I>><i> that I update a new version, then I can backport. The idea is that a +</I>><i> newer packages may suffer from more bug than older one. +</I> +Could this apply only to "-backport" media and not "-backport_testing " media +? I would find good to be able to send a package very quickly to +backports_testing so that I can start to be tested as soon as possible. A +whole week for that would be a long time, considering that after that you have +to add more time so that the backport can be tested. + +By the way I think a packager usually knows the risks there is to send a +package too quickly to the backports and that we don't necessarily need to +enforce such a strict "1 week" rule. Especially when sending to +backports_testing first. + + +><i> - cannot be backported if this is not a leaf package, will be revised +</I>><i> later +</I> +I would like to be less strict, by replacing "leaf package" by "leaf group of +packages, tighly tied together by strict requires". + +Examples : +- A requires newer B and C, and no other package requires B and C (quite +common with games where data are split into separate packages) => you can +backport A, B, C. To me this situation should be possible. +- A requires newer B, but D depends on B too => you can't backport A and B +alone, but if the maintainers consider it acceptable to enforce upgrade of D +when someone wants to upgrade A or upgrade of A when someone wants to upgrade +D (could be related pieces of software), then you can backport A, B and D (and +make sure to set the good requires). To me this situation would be nice to +have as an available option. + +Best regards + +Samuel Verschelde + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006046.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005978.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6090">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6090">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6090">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6090">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |