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

Sat Jun 11 16:55:00 CEST 2011

Le samedi 11 juin 2011 14:26:19, Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
+> 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
+
+So it someone has a problem with a package you backported and reports it in 
+bugzilla, you'll answer "not supported" and close the door ? Then we have not 
+a single chance to have users accept to use backports rather than ask for a 
+rolling release (supposing that we want to stay with stable releases model, 
+which hasn't been decided yet).
+
+In my opinion, a backport must be either supported or not exist. Even in 
+Mandriva, where everybody keep saying "backports ain't supported", usually 
+people try to solve the problems caused by backports.
+
+However, the level of support can be different between backports and updates, 
+as I said in my previous message. The differences are yet to define, but here 
+are some I see :
+- when a critical bug in a backport exists, you can simply update to a newer 
+version and see if it's solved
+- if the program already is in its the latest version and has an upstream bug, 
+you can answer "report the bug upstream" and stop there until upstream solves 
+the bug. For packages in release or updates, ideally you have to try to help 
+fixing it or work it around because the bug is considered part of the whole 
+distribution.
+
+Best regards
+
+Samuel
+-------------- next part --------------
+An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20110611/e0b9ab4a/attachment.html>
+