[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)

Fri Oct 8 21:03:42 CEST 2010

Le 2010-10-08 13:49, Frank Griffin a écrit :
+> Marc Paré wrote:
+>>
+>>
+>> As it seems we keep going in circles on this Romain has arranged the
+>> following so that the threads on this topic become more focussed:
+> I'd read the thread previously, and checked the wiki page, but this is a
+> different issue.  That wiki page is pretty much just a poll (who are
+> you, what do you do with your systems, what kind of release schedule do
+> you want).  This proposal is independent of whether there's a rolling
+> release or not; it's about presenting the update process to the user in
+> a different way.
+>
+
+Yup, I reread your proposal. You are right. It would be nice for you to 
+add it to the wiki page. This is after all, as you said, one of the 
+issues raised in the thread.
+
+--------------------
+
+As to your proposal, the issue with "Backports" and lack of 
+understanding form the users point of view is quite a large one. There 
+should be a VERY descriptive info section explaining the purpose of 
+"Backports". The lack of a descriptive expanation just did not make the 
+"Backports" section of the MCC popular by users. We just assumed that 
+when a newer version of our favourite soft. had come out, that all we 
+had to do is wait for it to come up in the "you know, that red ball 
+thingy in the tasbar on the right-bottom".
+
+I am now making use of Backports and loving it! But also realize the 
+dangers of using it.
+
+--------------------
+
+So, as to your proposal, I am in agreement with it. Maybe a suggestion 
+(more of a question), seeing as the issues have to deal more with the 
+dependencies of a "roll-back", what if, "Backports" would install, 
+somehow the software updates in a self compartment kind of way (sorry my 
+language terms may not be descriptive enough).
+
+Users know that repositories are activated and some are not at the time 
+of install. I think that most users have a faint idea of this. But if 
+Backports were to be used more at the user level, what is clear, is 
+that, there should be a roll-back feature. If the roll-back feature, as 
+a normal course of rolling-back will or could remove other softs due to 
+dependencies, then maybe possible option would be to have the "Backport" 
+software installations install all dependencies in such a way as to 
+isolate them from the larger distro packages. This would in effect could 
+make a secondary related-dependency file on the system. Then if a 
+roll-back were done a Backported software package only the associated 
+dependencies would be deleted.
+
+Could this be done?
+
+Sorry, I am not sure if this is written clearly enough.
+
+Marc
+
+