diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006996.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006996.html | 167 |
1 files changed, 167 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006996.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006996.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1c92a23a6 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006996.html @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] backports + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20backports&In-Reply-To=%3C1311633238.3419.43.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006994.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="006997.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] backports</H1> + <B>Michael Scherer</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20backports&In-Reply-To=%3C1311633238.3419.43.camel%40akroma.ephaone.org%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] backports">misc at zarb.org + </A><BR> + <I>Tue Jul 26 00:33:57 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006994.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006997.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6996">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6996">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6996">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6996">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Le lundi 25 juillet 2011 à 21:47 +0200, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : +><i> Hi, +</I>><i> +</I>><i> with regards to backports, users are complaining (they always do) that +</I>><i> backports are taking too long. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> on the one hand almost everyone seems to agree that backports should be +</I>><i> "supported" in some way or another... however, noone seems to want to +</I>><i> actuallty put in the time to finalize that. (or at least that's how I see it) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Since afair there is no real consensus, i suggest one of the following +</I>><i> options, or possibly make this a vote, or have packaging team leaders (or +</I>><i> board) decide this: +</I>><i> +</I>><i> A. backports are maintainers responsibility +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Every backport is tested or untested by maintainers discretion, (s)he decides +</I>><i> how much testing it needs. We could still make a policy that there should be +</I>><i> some tests. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> B. well established support like updates +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Similar QA like updates. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>><i> then there is the matter of submission: +</I>><i> +</I>><i> A. We submit all backports from cauldron +</I>><i> +</I>><i> B. like updates, there's a separate section for backports +</I>><i> +</I>><i> C. backport submission is only allowed from the separate section, not from +</I>><i> cauldron, if you want to backports from cauldron, you need to make the +</I>><i> necessary steps yourself. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>><i> personally, i favor B & C; such as i think most of the people wanted; but if +</I>><i> wanted, i can settle for A & B. +</I> +If people did read what others said, they would have seen the obvious +problem : +Most people using backports, if not all, want to update just partially +their system ( ie, cherry picking ). See for example the mail of wobo +<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/mageia-dev@mageia.org/msg05794.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/mageia-dev@mageia.org/msg05794.html</A> + +We also do it on our infrastructure, and I know others admins that do it +too. See also others mails about the topic. + +So you are completely missing the real problems. + +Yet, the solution is simple : +just say that backports are unsupported beyond "we offer them on the +mirrors", since nobody is willing to : + +1) properly define supported ( yet everybody agree that it should be ). +To me supported mean : +- do not break important stuff of the distribution +- is supported in term of bugfixes by the distribution, in a timely +fashion +- supported by packagers + +2) take the required measure to make that happen +and by "taking the measure", I mean "follow the limitations that would +enable proper support by my definition", which include among others : +- not break upgrade from the distro to a new version ( I already +explained that in the previous thread ) +- not let users with outdated and vulnerable softwares without expecting +them to spend time finely tuning their system, and without putting +restriction on what they run ( such as forcing to run a specific applet +instead of having a smooth and integrated system like update ) + +Current system of Mandriva, that is currently used, is geared toward +technical users only, and even them are left with a system in a +unsupported state ( ie, no update, no upgrade, and no assurance of +backport being properly tested ). + +We only solved the 3rd part for now, and I did proposal for the 2nd one +( that were refused ). + +><i> If someone from -sysadmin can find the time to make the SVN repos for backports +</I>><i> (and testing), that would be awesome, so we can actually do some testing for +</I>><i> it and get this show on the road. +</I> +I do not think we should deploy first and then think. + +Either we declare backport unsupported, as in the current form, saying +otherwise would be lying, or we need clearly define what to expect ( and +that would be mostly "no support if you do this, and less support if you +do that" ) if people think unsupported is too strong. If we take this +way, we should make it clear to people using it. + +Or we find a solution for the problems, without adding new ones. + +We worked too hard to have a good reputation of being a solid +distribution to ruin it. People can better cope with running old working +softwares ( with old being 3 or 4 months old ) than having crashes or +breakage later. + +Especially since people have said "we do not want to reinstall on every +version", to me, that's clearly a demand from users to have a working +and smooth distribution upgrade process. +-- +Michael Scherer + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006994.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006997.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6996">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6996">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6996">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6996">[ 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> |