From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html | 197 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 197 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4f99f7df2 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/005271.html @@ -0,0 +1,197 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport? + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?

+ Colin Guthrie + mageia at colin.guthr.ie +
+ Thu Jun 9 13:39:17 CEST 2011 +

+
+ +
'Twas brillig, and Wolfgang Bornath at 09/06/11 11:03 did gyre and gimble:
+> 2011/6/9 Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie>:
+>> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 09/06/11 10:40 did gyre and
+>> gimble:
+>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+>>>
+>>>> otoh, perhaps a missing package is also a bugfix... maybe we could
+>>>> file bug
+>>>> reports for missing packages and go through the updates route...
+>>>
+>>> Filing bug reports is not a bad idea, even if the new package will go to
+>>> backports. Just explain a little why it is important (to fix this in a
+>>> stable release).
+>>>
+>>> We probably need a new "version" in bugzilla because mga1+backports is
+>>> basically a new distro. A bug in backports shouldn't be filed against
+>>> "1" IMHO.
+> 
+> There's already a lot of requests for missing packages in Bugzilla,
+> the question about filing such bug reports was answered long ago.
+> 
+>> As I said in my original mail I really don't think backports is the
+>> right approach.
+>>
+>> I'd prefer to have a 3rd party repo than abuse backports to get the
+>> missing packages.
+> 
+> I thought we will try to avoid 3rd party repos?
+
+Yes we did, but I still think it would be better than using backports as
+backports is very specifically "not-supported updates" and if users have
+to add that media to get the missing packages then IMO this is very
+dangerous. Hence my statement that it would *prefer* to use a 3rd party
+repo over using backports as it is safer for the user. It doesn't mean
+to say I like the idea in an absolute sense.
+
+My *preferred* (i.e. absolute, not relative) is to use updates, but
+without the QA burden and overhead.
+
+Hope that clarifies.
+
+Col
+
+
+
+-- 
+
+Colin Guthrie
+mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie
+http://colin.guthr.ie/
+
+Day Job:
+  Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/]
+Open Source:
+  Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/]
+  PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/]
+  Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1