diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006174.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006174.html | 121 |
1 files changed, 121 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006174.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006174.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..99885d5f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006174.html @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Update of backport, 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%20Update%20of%20backport%2C%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C4E0CF0DE.50406%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006167.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="006025.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal</H1> + <B>andre999</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Update%20of%20backport%2C%20policy%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%3C4E0CF0DE.50406%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal">andr55 at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Thu Jun 30 23:55:42 CEST 2011</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006167.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006025.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6174">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6174">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6174">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6174">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Samuel Verschelde a écrit : +><i> +</I>><i> Le mardi 28 juin 2011 03:44:24, andre999 a écrit : +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> 2) Backports would not be removed from repos when a newer backport arrives, +</I>>><i> except those affected by security updates. +</I>>><i> This allows reverting to previous backports if a user finds a problem with +</I>>><i> a backport on their system. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> I'd prefer that we don't keep multiple backports versions in the repositories, +</I>><i> for the sake of simplicity. Users who ask for the latest must accept that +</I>><i> sometimes the latest is not the greatest. Plus, we have the backports_testing +</I>><i> repos so that users can test and spot bugs before the old backport is replaced +</I>><i> with the new one. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> I want stable : don't use backports. +</I>><i> I want the latest : use backports. +</I>><i> I want an intermediate version : no, sorry, your need is too specific. You can +</I>><i> still compile it. +</I> +I'm trying to consider the needs of a typical backport user, who needs to revert +to a previous version of a backport already installed, due to problems with a +newer backport. +A problem which will often affect only some users installing the particular +backport. + +They won't activate the backport repository. So when installing backports, they +will only see a list of backports (at least via rpmdrake). +They are not necessarily familiar with compiling (unlike most of us). + +Suppose for a package release A we have issued backports B and C. +If B causes problems on a particular system, the user reverts to A. +No problem. +If a user has installed B, which worked well for them, + and subsequently installes C which has problems, + they would like to revert to B. +(Reverting to A could cause a loss of data as well as functionality.) + +So why tell the user that they can't revert to a backport version that already +worked for them ? + +I would suggest a message such as : +"users installing backports should install the latest version for the package +unless they need to revert to a previous version due to problems" +(To appear only when they have chosen to install backports.) + +I realise that this complicates the presentation, and maybe another solution +could be found. +(For example, saving all backports packages installed on a system, so that they +can be reinstalled.) +(A case-by-case analysis of new backports could show which previous backports +could be safely removed, for minor changes such as simple bug fixes.) + +Or maybe make these backports only visible with urpmi, so that users of the +graphic interfaces won't see them. (As someone else suggested.) +This would of course require the graphic interfaces to avoid displaying these +older backports, but would provide the other advantages of keeping the backports. + +Keeping previous backports would facilitate producing security updates for all +backports actually installed on various user's systems. +This adds some complexity for security updates, in exchange for greater security. + +><i> Samuel +</I> +-- +André +</PRE> + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006167.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="006025.html">[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#6174">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#6174">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#6174">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#6174">[ 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> |