diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016448.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016448.html | 146 |
1 files changed, 146 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016448.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016448.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f88d903f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016448.html @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +<!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=%3C4FD7C3C9.8050105%40laposte.net%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016445.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016449.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=%3C4FD7C3C9.8050105%40laposte.net%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net + </A><BR> + <I>Wed Jun 13 00:33:45 CEST 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016445.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016449.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16448">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16448">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16448">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16448">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>nicolas vigier a écrit : +><i> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012, Samuel Verschelde wrote: +</I>><i> +</I>><i> +</I>>><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>><i> I think we cannot have both : +</I>><i> - backports with higher version than in next stable release +</I>><i> - easy upgrade to next stable release +</I>><i> +</I> +Why not ? +We would have to ensure that the version of the backport is less than or +equal to the version of the package (backport or not) in the next stable +release. We just have to follow the versioning policy of updates c.f. +Cauldron, i.e. an update always has a version less than cauldron. +(Which allows for adding updates without changing the version of the +next release.) + +We would also have to ensure that the requires of the backport would be +available in the next stable release, which would be somewhat trickier, +but doable. (In most cases this would not be a problem.) +I think that we should fine-tune the rules so that we have both. (Thus +restricting how we define the requires, etc, and also restricting what +can be backported in some cases.) +Note that there are already some (loosely defined) restrictions on what +can be backported. + +Maybe we should have a group which approves backports (including the +spec file), based on upgradability and other criteria. Especially in +the beginning, when the details will be less well-defined and packagers +less experienced with backports. Something like what we did for +exceptions to the version freeze for mga2. (Maybe approval by one of +the packager team leaders ? ;-) ) +We could make that a requirement for moving from backports-testing to +backports. + +><i> We can only have one in this list, so I think we need to decide which +</I>><i> one we want to keep. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> In my opinion, freezing backports of distribution N-1 when distribution +</I>><i> N is released is a serious limitation and we should not do this. Instead +</I>><i> I would say that easy upgrade when using new backports after release of +</I>><i> distribution N+1 is not guaranteed (but should still work in many cases). +</I>><i> +</I> +Agreed about not denying backports for N-1 releases. + +><i> Then users can decide to : +</I>><i> - not use backports if they plan to do an upgrade later and avoid any +</I>><i> potential problem +</I>><i> - use backports, and do a reinstall instead of an upgrade +</I>><i> - use backports, do an upgrade, and know that in some case a few +</I>><i> packages may need to be manually reinstalled. But there still +</I>><i> shouldn't be important problems in most cases. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> We can provide a tool to list installed packages that are more recent +</I>><i> than version available in repository. This list can help to know which +</I>><i> packages may need to be reinstalled. But we don't know whether user +</I>><i> wants to revert to release or updates repository version, or use the +</I>><i> latest backports version. +</I>><i> +</I>-- +André + +</PRE> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016445.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016449.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#16448">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#16448">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#16448">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#16448">[ 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> |