diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006997.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006997.html | 169 |
1 files changed, 169 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006997.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006997.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8474ba3e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-July/006997.html @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +<!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=%3CCA%2Bh4nj6LiZc4uG7vqwELRQ-VYhOW0MMXAt0W-GLwo4K5nKOaCQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006996.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="006993.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] backports</H1> + <B>Wolfgang Bornath</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20backports&In-Reply-To=%3CCA%2Bh4nj6LiZc4uG7vqwELRQ-VYhOW0MMXAt0W-GLwo4K5nKOaCQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] backports">molch.b at googlemail.com + </A><BR> + <I>Tue Jul 26 04:13:05 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006996.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006993.html">[Mageia-dev] [RPM] cauldron core/release gnome-keyring-3.1.4-3.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6997">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6997">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6997">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6997">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>2011/7/26 Michael Scherer <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">misc at zarb.org</A>>: +><i> Le lundi 25 juillet 2011 à 21:47 +0200, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : +</I>>><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>><i> +</I>><i> If people did read what others said, they would have seen the obvious +</I>><i> problem : +</I>><i> Most people using backports, if not all, want to update just partially +</I>><i> their system ( ie, cherry picking ). See for example the mail of wobo +</I>><i> <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> +</I>><i> +</I>><i> We also do it on our infrastructure, and I know others admins that do it +</I>><i> too. See also others mails about the topic. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> So you are completely missing the real problems. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Yet, the solution is simple : +</I>><i> just say that backports are unsupported beyond "we offer them on the +</I>><i> mirrors", since nobody is willing to : +</I>><i> +</I>><i> 1) properly define supported ( yet everybody agree that it should be ). +</I>><i> To me supported mean : +</I>><i> - do not break important stuff of the distribution +</I>><i> - is supported in term of bugfixes by the distribution, in a timely +</I>><i> fashion +</I>><i> - supported by packagers +</I>><i> +</I>><i> 2) take the required measure to make that happen +</I>><i> and by "taking the measure", I mean "follow the limitations that would +</I>><i> enable proper support by my definition", which include among others : +</I>><i> - not break upgrade from the distro to a new version ( I already +</I>><i> explained that in the previous thread ) +</I>><i> - not let users with outdated and vulnerable softwares without expecting +</I>><i> them to spend time finely tuning their system, and without putting +</I>><i> restriction on what they run ( such as forcing to run a specific applet +</I>><i> instead of having a smooth and integrated system like update ) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Current system of Mandriva, that is currently used, is geared toward +</I>><i> technical users only, and even them are left with a system in a +</I>><i> unsupported state ( ie, no update, no upgrade, and no assurance of +</I>><i> backport being properly tested ). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> We only solved the 3rd part for now, and I did proposal for the 2nd one +</I>><i> ( that were refused ). +</I>><i> +</I>>><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> +</I>><i> I do not think we should deploy first and then think. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Either we declare backport unsupported, as in the current form, saying +</I>><i> otherwise would be lying, or we need clearly define what to expect ( and +</I>><i> that would be mostly "no support if you do this, and less support if you +</I>><i> do that" ) if people think unsupported is too strong. If we take this +</I>><i> way, we should make it clear to people using it. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Or we find a solution for the problems, without adding new ones. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> We worked too hard to have a good reputation of being a solid +</I>><i> distribution to ruin it. People can better cope with running old working +</I>><i> softwares ( with old being 3 or 4 months old ) than having crashes or +</I>><i> breakage later. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Especially since people have said "we do not want to reinstall on every +</I>><i> version", to me, that's clearly a demand from users to have a working +</I>><i> and smooth distribution upgrade process. +</I> +A very strong +1 for these 2 last paragraphs. + +-- +wobo +</PRE> + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006996.html">[Mageia-dev] backports +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006993.html">[Mageia-dev] [RPM] cauldron core/release gnome-keyring-3.1.4-3.mga2 +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6997">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6997">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6997">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6997">[ 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> |