diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016288.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016288.html | 171 |
1 files changed, 171 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016288.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016288.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a39ae07b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016288.html @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) + </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%20clarification%20%28and%20discussion%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4FD207FB.7060805%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016272.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016289.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)</H1> + <B>andre999</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20clarification%20%28and%20discussion%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4FD207FB.7060805%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Fri Jun 8 16:11:07 CEST 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016272.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016289.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16288">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16288">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16288">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16288">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Sander Lepik a écrit : +><i> 08.06.2012 11:38, Samuel Verschelde kirjutas: +</I>><i> +</I>>><i> I re-read the backports policy, and there's a part I think needs to be pointed +</I>>><i> out before people start to backport packages. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> "We need to ensure that upgrades never fail: cauldron must always have a +</I>>><i> higher version/release than in stable releases." +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> This statement is true, but implies more than what it says. It means that we +</I>>><i> can't backport a package for Mageia 1 with a higher version than what we have +</I>>><i> in Mageia 2 release (and updates?) media. And this, until we are able to take +</I>>><i> backports into account during upgrades. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Example : +</I>>><i> - Mageia 2 has wesnoth 1.10.2 in core/release +</I>>><i> - Mageia 1 can't get a higher version in its backports media +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> Do you all agree with my understanding of the policy ? +</I>>><i> +</I> +I see your point. +In most cases, a backport for mga1 would be essentially identical for +mga2 (except package file name and corresponding changes in the spec file). +It would only differ if dependancies differ, which I suspect is unlikely +for wesnoth or most other games, for example. +So this means that for a backport to mga1, we should first do one to mga2. +This would more than likely be done at the same time by the same +packager, so not much more work. +The demand for backports to mga1 is not likely to be very high, and +would depend on a willing packager. + +>><i> This is a serious limitation to our ability to backport to Mageia (n-1) and +</I>>><i> even to our ability to provide security fixes to backports there (will not +</I>>><i> prevent it, but will prevent to do it by a version upgrade, which is the +</I>>><i> common way to fix that kind of issue in backports). +</I>>><i> +</I> +If we already have a backport with versions in mga2 and mga1, applying +security fixes to both would not likely be much more involved than only +to mga2. If it only applies to mga1, as long as the version is lower +than that in mga2, we can always ensure that the version of the update +remains lower. Similarly for mga2 with respect to cauldron. + +>><i> Maybe we shouldn't open backports for Mageia 1, and make sure upgrade to +</I>>><i> Mageia 3 can take backports from Mageia 2 into account so that backports to +</I>>><i> Mageia 2 are not stopped when Mageia 3 is released. Then we'll be safe. +</I>>><i> +</I> +Not to worry :) +>><i> Samuel +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> I think backports should be open until new stable is released. So we should not open +</I>><i> backports for mga1 and when mga2 is released then backports for mga2 will be closed. +</I>><i> It's the only way we can manage upgrades with our current packager resources. +</I>><i> +</I> +A backport isn't going to happen without a packager willing to package +it. There is no point in arbitrarily blocking backports to supported +releases for this reason. +Although I would agree that there is not likely to be many backports to +mga1, because of this and the lower priority in QA, as well as the +understanding that the user requesting the backport would be implicated +in testing it. + +><i> -- +</I>><i> Sander +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>-- +André + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016272.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016289.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16288">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16288">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16288">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16288">[ 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> |