diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005409.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005409.html | 197 |
1 files changed, 197 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005409.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005409.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..adce5faed --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005409.html @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Missing%20packages%20in%20Mageia%201.%20How%20to%20backport%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201106111801.54861.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005407.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="005410.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?</H1> + <B>Maarten Vanraes</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Missing%20packages%20in%20Mageia%201.%20How%20to%20backport%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201106111801.54861.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com + </A><BR> + <I>Sat Jun 11 18:01:54 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005407.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005410.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5409">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5409">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5409">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5409">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 16:55:00 schreef Samuel Verschelde: +><i> Le samedi 11 juin 2011 14:26:19, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : +</I>><i> > Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 13:14:29 schreef Samuel Verschelde: +</I>><i> > > Le samedi 11 juin 2011 12:06:55, Christiaan Welvaart a écrit : +</I>><i> > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Michael Scherer wrote: +</I>><i> > > > > We can agree that everybody want something newer for some rpms, but +</I>><i> > > > > few people want everything to be newer ( ie, now one run backports +</I>><i> > > > > as a update media, I think ). So as much as I am against asking to +</I>><i> > > > > users questions, we must show them the choice somewhere, in a non +</I>><i> > > > > obstrusive way. +</I>><i> > > > +</I>><i> > > > Maybe, but how would be "support" this? We must be able to reproduce +</I>><i> > > > a reported problem. This becomes complicated when we don't know what +</I>><i> > > > is installed on the user's system. A guideline for bug reporters is +</I>><i> > > > (or should be) "make sure you installed the latest updates". What +</I>><i> > > > would be the equivalent for backports? I'm afraid it should be "if +</I>><i> > > > you installed any backports, make sure you installed all backports +</I>><i> > > > that are relevant for your system". If someone has a problem with +</I>><i> > > > any other combination, the bug report might be rejected. How would +</I>><i> > > > QA even work when only selected packages are upgraded from +</I>><i> > > > backports, or integration testing: integration with what? +</I>><i> > > > +</I>><i> > > > So the only combinations we can support are: +</I>><i> > > > - release + updates +</I>><i> > > > - release + updates + backports +</I>><i> > > > +</I>><i> > > > More practical: for mga1 I have a VM that I can keep updated. For +</I>><i> > > > mga1 backports I can install another VM with backports enabled. But +</I>><i> > > > for bugs reported with only selected backports installed I suppose I +</I>><i> > > > would have to install a new VM with mga1, update it, and install +</I>><i> > > > only those backports - +</I>><i> > > +</I>><i> > > > for each bug report. But maybe I'm missing something, please explain. +</I>(: +><i> > > If we suppose that either updates or backports are supported (with a +</I>><i> > > support level to be defined), the situation is simpler to me : a good +</I>><i> > > backport must work with all its dependencies coming from updates or +</I>><i> > > release OR it must explicitly require higher versions, found only in +</I>><i> > > the backports media and so automatically pulled. +</I>><i> > > +</I>><i> > > So I don't think that having picked up only certain backported packages +</I>><i> > > is a problem for the maintainer's support. Maybe I over-simplified the +</I>><i> > > situation, but I don't think it will be as complex as you say. +</I>><i> > > +</I>><i> > > Samuel +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > imho this creates more work for packagers or qa team to support +</I>><i> > backports, i'm not really in favor of this solution +</I>><i> +</I>><i> So it someone has a problem with a package you backported and reports it in +</I>><i> bugzilla, you'll answer "not supported" and close the door ? Then we have +</I>><i> not a single chance to have users accept to use backports rather than ask +</I>><i> for a rolling release (supposing that we want to stay with stable releases +</I>><i> model, which hasn't been decided yet). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> In my opinion, a backport must be either supported or not exist. Even in +</I>><i> Mandriva, where everybody keep saying "backports ain't supported", usually +</I>><i> people try to solve the problems caused by backports. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> However, the level of support can be different between backports and +</I>><i> updates, as I said in my previous message. The differences are yet to +</I>><i> define, but here are some I see : +</I>><i> - when a critical bug in a backport exists, you can simply update to a +</I>><i> newer version and see if it's solved +</I>><i> - if the program already is in its the latest version and has an upstream +</I>><i> bug, you can answer "report the bug upstream" and stop there until +</I>><i> upstream solves the bug. For packages in release or updates, ideally you +</I>><i> have to try to help fixing it or work it around because the bug is +</I>><i> considered part of the whole distribution. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Best regards +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Samuel +</I> +What about security fixes? if there's 1 version in release and 10 in backports? +do the older backported packages have to be securitypatched? + +imho not supported backports means that if backports has an issue, try a newer +backports... + +imho that is a good level, that doesn't require much effort. +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005407.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="005410.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#5409">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#5409">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#5409">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#5409">[ 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> |