summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html')
-rw-r--r--zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html151
1 files changed, 151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7e2643b7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016562.html
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
+<HTML>
+ <HEAD>
+ <TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
+ </TITLE>
+ <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
+ <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposed%20Feature%3ABackports_update_applet&In-Reply-To=%3Co9gua9-rc4.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E">
+ <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
+ <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
+ <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016516.html">
+ <LINK REL="Next" HREF="016431.html">
+ </HEAD>
+ <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
+ <H1>[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet</H1>
+ <B>blind Pete</B>
+ <A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposed%20Feature%3ABackports_update_applet&In-Reply-To=%3Co9gua9-rc4.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E"
+ TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet">0123peter at gmail.com
+ </A><BR>
+ <I>Sat Jun 16 16:03:04 CEST 2012</I>
+ <P><UL>
+ <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016516.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
+</A></li>
+ <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016431.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
+</A></li>
+ <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
+ <a href="date.html#16562">[ date ]</a>
+ <a href="thread.html#16562">[ thread ]</a>
+ <a href="subject.html#16562">[ subject ]</a>
+ <a href="author.html#16562">[ author ]</a>
+ </LI>
+ </UL>
+ <HR>
+<!--beginarticle-->
+<PRE>andre999 wrote:
+
+&gt;<i> blind Pete a &#233;crit :
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> andre999 wrote:
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> blind Pete a &#233;crit :
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> andre999 wrote:
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> blind Pete a &#233;crit :
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> Samuel Verschelde wrote:
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> [snip]
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> - Functioning as an update, it would only replace already installed
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> backports, once the tools are appropriately adjusted.
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> There are a couple of ways to do that. The simplest that I can think
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> of is to split &quot;backports&quot; into &quot;backports&quot; and &quot;backports update&quot;.
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> Allow cherry picking from &quot;backports&quot; and apply &quot;backports update&quot;
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> automatically.
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> I was thinking of cases where the user chooses to &quot;update&quot; their
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> system. New versions of backports already installed would be presented
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> as updates, along with those from the update repos.
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> Just as we don't have any update-update repos, it wouldn't make sense to
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> have backport-update repos either.
+</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> [snip]
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> It depends on how you look at it.
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> If you consider non-free, tainted, and backport to be optional
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> and any update package to be highly recommended if and only if
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> the corresponding package is already installed. Then is does
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> not matter if the old package is a tainted.rpm, nonfree.rpm,
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> bp.rpm, or an ordinary rpm. Just one way to look at it, not
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i> the only way.
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
+</I>&gt;<i> But how is it possible to distinguish a priori between a backport which
+</I>&gt;<i> will be an update and one which will be a &quot;new&quot; backport on a users'
+</I>&gt;<i> system. It would only be an &quot;update&quot; if the user has already installed
+</I>&gt;<i> the corresponding backport on their system.
+</I>
+If the rpm is tagged, either internally or just by having &quot;bp&quot; in
+the file name you can tell if it is a backport. If a new package
+has the same name - including the &quot;bp&quot; part - but a higher version
+number, install it, else, just list it as available. Or they could
+be kept in different places.
+
+&gt;<i> If the fact it is a backport is ignored, then every backport would be,
+</I>&gt;<i> by definition, an update. Even packages newly imported to Mageia.
+</I>
+???
+
+I meant that the logic for dealing with a bp-update would be the
+same as for nonfree-update and tainted-update (and I suspect,
+update itself). Re-use existing code.
+
+&gt;<i> To me, a &quot;corresponding&quot; package is one from the same category,
+</I>&gt;<i> according to whether is is backport or not, and according to whether in
+</I>&gt;<i> &quot;core&quot;, &quot;nonfree&quot;, or &quot;tainted&quot;.
+</I>&gt;<i> To consider otherwise is to deny the importance of these categories.
+</I>
+Catagories multiply here, not add, you have listed six, not four.
+
+&gt;<i> Backports are considered separately because they are much more at risk
+</I>&gt;<i> to not function properly, since they weren't tested with the rest of the
+</I>&gt;<i> release, being added afterwards. So we have to be much more careful
+</I>&gt;<i> about adding them. The last thing we want is for the backports to be
+</I>&gt;<i> included automatically with updates, even if the user had not already
+</I>&gt;<i> decided to install the corresponding backport. Installing a backport
+</I>&gt;<i> should be an exceptional, explicitly decided activity -- except when the
+</I>&gt;<i> user has already decided to install the corresponding backport, when it
+</I>&gt;<i> is useful to present newer versions as updates. They are likely
+</I>&gt;<i> security or bug fixes.
+</I>
+I think that we are in agreement.
+
+
+</PRE>
+
+
+
+
+
+<!--endarticle-->
+ <HR>
+ <P><UL>
+ <!--threads-->
+ <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016516.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
+</A></li>
+ <LI>Next message: <A HREF="016431.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
+</A></li>
+ <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
+ <a href="date.html#16562">[ date ]</a>
+ <a href="thread.html#16562">[ thread ]</a>
+ <a href="subject.html#16562">[ subject ]</a>
+ <a href="author.html#16562">[ 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>