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

Sat Jun 11 14:26:19 CEST 2011

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 13:14:29 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> Le samedi 11 juin 2011 12:06:55, Christiaan Welvaart a écrit :
+> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> > > We can agree that everybody want something newer for some rpms, but few
+> > > people want everything to be newer ( ie, now one run backports as a
+> > > update media, I think ). So as much as I am against asking to users
+> > > questions, we must show them the choice somewhere, in a non obstrusive
+> > > way.
+> > 
+> > Maybe, but how would be "support" this? We must be able to reproduce a
+> > reported problem. This becomes complicated when we don't know what is
+> > installed on the user's system. A guideline for bug reporters is (or
+> > should be) "make sure you installed the latest updates". What would be
+> > the equivalent for backports? I'm afraid it should be "if you installed
+> > any backports, make sure you installed all backports that are relevant
+> > for your system". If someone has a problem with any other combination,
+> > the bug report might be rejected. How would QA even work when only
+> > selected packages are upgraded from backports, or integration testing:
+> > integration with what?
+> > 
+> > So the only combinations we can support are:
+> >    - release + updates
+> >    - release + updates + backports
+> > 
+> > More practical: for mga1 I have a VM that I can keep updated. For mga1
+> > backports I can install another VM with backports enabled. But for bugs
+> > reported with only selected backports installed I suppose I would have to
+> > install a new VM with mga1, update it, and install only those backports -
+> 
+> > for each bug report. But maybe I'm missing something, please explain. (:
+> If we suppose that either updates or backports are supported (with a
+> support level to be defined), the situation is simpler to me :  a good
+> backport must work  with all its dependencies coming from updates or
+> release OR it must explicitly require higher versions, found only in the
+> backports media and so automatically pulled.
+> 
+> So I don't think that having picked up only certain backported packages is
+> a problem for the maintainer's support. Maybe I over-simplified the
+> situation, but I don't think it will be as complex as you say.
+> 
+> Samuel
+
+imho this creates more work for packagers or qa team to support backports, i'm 
+not really in favor of this solution
+