diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016428.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016428.html | 185 |
1 files changed, 185 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016428.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016428.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..be62c3f72 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016428.html @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ +<!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=%3C4FD72157.5010002%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016568.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016567.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=%3C4FD72157.5010002%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Tue Jun 12 13:00:39 CEST 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016568.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016567.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16428">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16428">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16428">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16428">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>blind Pete a écrit : +><i> andre999 wrote: +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>>><i> blind Pete a écrit : +</I>>><i> +</I>>>><i> Samuel Verschelde wrote: +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 20:20:54, David W. Hodgins a écrit : +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:22:41 -0400, Samuel Verschelde +</I>>>>>><i> <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">stormi at laposte.net</A>> +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> wrote: +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>><i> I think you missed my point. If Mageia 1 "backports" has higher +</I>>>>>>><i> versions than Mageia 2 "release" (not backports), upgrade can fail +</I>>>>>>><i> because currently our tools do not take backports from the target +</I>>>>>>><i> release (mageia 2) into account when upgrading a distro. +</I>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> In the upgrade from Mandriva 2010.2 to Mageia 1, it was made clear, +</I>>>>>><i> that +</I>>>>>><i> upgrading from a system with 2010.2 Backports was not supported. It +</I>>>>>><i> may work, but was not recommended. +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> I think we should keep the same policy for the upgrade from Mageia 1 to +</I>>>>>><i> 2. +</I>>>>>><i> I.E. Don't use backports if you are planning on later doing an +</I>>>>>><i> upgrade, rather then a clean install. +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> That way, Mageia 1 users who want firefox 13 can get it, without us +</I>>>>>><i> having to replace the Mageia 2 iso images with an upgraded installer, +</I>>>>>><i> that will keep backports enabled for 2, if it was enabled for 1. +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>><i> Current tools will correctly update backports much of the time. (From +</I>>><i> my experience.) +</I>>><i> The tools just need to be reworked somewhat to ensure that backports are +</I>>><i> updated correctly all of the time. +</I>>><i> +</I>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> Regards, Dave Hodgins +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> Again, this is not the policy we adopted. When we defined the backports +</I>>>>><i> policy (together, although it seems most people are just discovering it +</I>>>>><i> now) we said that we didn't want to have backports that don't work, +</I>>>>><i> break a system, or prevent upgrade. +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> However, I think that for DVD upgrade without internet access this is a +</I>>>>><i> sensible option. But the upgrader should detect the situation itself, +</I>>>>><i> not hope that the user will read somewhere in the release notes that +</I>>>>><i> it's not supported. +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>>><i> +</I>>>><i> No, just include Cauldron's backport repositories (disabled by default) +</I>>>><i> inside the DVD iso. Upgrade to the release version, if possible. +</I>>>><i> If that is not possible, upgrade to the version in backports. +</I>>>><i> +</I>>><i> Cauldron's backport repos will always be empty. +</I>>><i> If you introduce a new package, or a new version of an existing package +</I>>><i> to Cauldron, it is not, by definition, a backport. Even though the same +</I>>><i> version (not counting the revision) may be a backport for previous +</I>>><i> releases. +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> By definition you are completely correct, but I was deliberatly +</I>><i> bending the definition to cover beta software. Or at least to +</I>><i> draw a distinction between an Extended Support Release package +</I>><i> and a standard package. A new name would make sense here. +</I> +They would have different names (if generally only the version included +in one). +Since a backport can only have one name, it would correspond to only one +of the packages. Presumably that with the same (or closest) version. + +>><i> So if we do a release update to the latest release, backports will be +</I>>><i> replaced by regular packages except in those cases where a newer version +</I>>><i> has been introduced into Cauldron. And if we update to Cauldron, all +</I>>><i> backports will be replaced by regular packages -- according to our +</I>>><i> backport policy. +</I>>><i> +</I>><i> [snip] +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Some packages annoyingly have two current versions. When that +</I>><i> happens it seems perfectly reasonable to just pick one, but if +</I>><i> anyone is ambitious enough to try two at once, this would be a +</I>><i> mechanism to handle it. +</I> +Don't see how backport repos are related. +To be installed simultaneously, they would have to install to different +locations, which is generally not the case. There is more than one +version of Postgresql available, for example, but they conflict and so +can't be installed at the same time. + +-- +André + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016568.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016567.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16428">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16428">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16428">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16428">[ 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> |