diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016291.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016291.html | 166 |
1 files changed, 166 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016291.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016291.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5da442faf --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016291.html @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ +<!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=%3C4FD21310.9080005%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016296.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016300.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=%3C4FD21310.9080005%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Fri Jun 8 16:58:24 CEST 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016296.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016300.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16291">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16291">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16291">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16291">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Samuel Verschelde a écrit : +><i> Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 16:11:07, andre999 a écrit : +</I>><i> +</I>>><i> Sander Lepik a écrit : +</I>>><i> +</I>>>><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 +</I>>>>><i> pointed 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 +</I>>>>><i> that we can't backport a package for Mageia 1 with a higher version +</I>>>>><i> than what we have in Mageia 2 release (and updates?) media. And this, +</I>>>>><i> until we are able to take 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> I see your point. +</I>>><i> In most cases, a backport for mga1 would be essentially identical for +</I>>><i> mga2 (except package file name and corresponding changes in the spec file). +</I>>><i> It would only differ if dependancies differ, which I suspect is unlikely +</I>>><i> for wesnoth or most other games, for example. +</I>>><i> So this means that for a backport to mga1, we should first do one to mga2. +</I>>><i> This would more than likely be done at the same time by the same +</I>>><i> packager, so not much more work. +</I>>><i> The demand for backports to mga1 is not likely to be very high, and +</I>>><i> would depend on a willing packager. +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> I think you missed my point. If Mageia 1 "backports" has higher versions than +</I>><i> Mageia 2 "release" (not backports), upgrade can fail because currently our +</I>><i> tools do not take backports from the target release (mageia 2) into account +</I>><i> when upgrading a distro. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Samuel +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>But wouldn't current tools update backports if backports are active ? +(At least in an update after the release update. Personally I alway do +an update step after a release update, as I never have a reliable +connexion during a release update, which I do from dvd.) +This reinforces my idea that all backports should be tagged as +backports, and the tools adjusted for that. Then backports could be +updated during the release update, instead of as a separate step afterwards. +Maybe we should hold off on backports until we ensure that all backport +packages are tagged as such. +See my comment about tagging backports on the backport policy discussion +page. + +This adds another factor to be considered in release updates. The tools +should be changed for this before we have any problematic backports. +Leaf packages shouldn't cause a problem, besides the package itself +maybe not working properly. In updates after the version update, the +user would see suggested updates with the current tools, as long as the +versions were appropriate, and backports were active. + +-- +André + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016296.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016300.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16291">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16291">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16291">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16291">[ 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> |