[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)

Thu Jun 16 00:29:12 CEST 2011

Radu-Cristian FOTESCU a écrit :
+>
+>> Release frequency never was a criteria for differentiating between
+>> pushing something to updates and something to backports.
+>
+> It should be. Otherwise, we should all be using OpenOffice.org 1.0.1. --
+> security issues set aside.
+>
+>> And I see no reason why it would be in favor of doing a bug fix update
+>> rather than a backport, especially if we ask to do a more stringent QA
+>> checking on updates, as it would put too much work on the team.
+>
+> Because Mageia (and Mandriva)'s vision of the concept of "backports" is not
+> compatible with my common-sense.
+>
+> I have not used Mandriva very much in the past, because I hate the concept of
+> "backports" -- yes, Ubuntu does them too, but Ubuntu backports are totally
+> unsupported, so you can imagine their "quality"...
+>
+> I'd rather stick to "updates" -- this is also the reason I stopped using
+> Debian, because the morons (yes, morons) were only pushing tzdata updates
+> in "volatile", not in "updates", whereas ALL the other distro weres pushing
+> tzdata updates in "updates".
+>
+> If Mageia considers that a 6-7 months old package (for an application that
+> released 32 times in the meantime) only deserves updates in "backports",
+> then I will probably stop reporting any possible bugs with this distro
+> -- as a protest.
+>
+> It is indeed a matter of principle. I am personally using the latest
+> calibre installed in /opt, not the official one, but again, it's a
+> matter of principle.
+>
+>
+> Whatever is important and comes from upstream  should go into updates IMHO.
+> Backports, in my view, only make sense if they're  coming from Release N+1
+> *and* if they represent a major version bump -- such as FF4 over FF3.6, etc.
+>
+>
+> WRT calibre, Fedora has a simple way: it keeps a newer calibre packages in
+> updates/testing for 1 week, and if no user complains about regressions, it
+> goes into updates. This is because calibre is a "leaf" package -- no other
+> package depends on it, so it only impacts those who are using it.
+>
+>> Again, that's not a criteria. Every software is important to at least
+>> one person, and that would mean we should update everything if we start
+>> to update everything important to one group of users.
+>
+> I can see how important is calibre to Mageia users. Nobody noticed or cared
+> that it is an antiquated version. They could have as well used notepad.exe
+> from Win95.
+>
+>
+>> And for what it is worth, Fedora is discussing having separate update
+>> and backport ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515 ), even if the
+>> discussion seems to be going nowhere at the moment
+>
+> BS. I hope Fedora *never* uses backports!
+>
+> Their update policy is very clear *and* flexible:
+> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
+>
+> Please note these:
+>
+> "Exceptions: Some classes of software will not fit in these guidelines.
+> If your package does not fit in one of the classes below, but you think
+> it should be allowed to update more rapidly . . .
+>
+>
+> Things that would make it more likely to grant a request:
+> --  The package is a "leaf" node. Nothing depends on it or requires it."
+>
+> Calibre is a "leaf" package.
+>
+> If not, in the same document:
+>
+> "All other updates must either:
+> -- reach the criteria laid out in the previous section OR
+> -- reach the positive Bodhi karma threshold specified by the updates submitter OR
+> -- spend some minimum amount of time in updates-testing, currently one week."
+>
+> I am not sure why F15 stopped updating calibre to 0.8.0 in updates (Rawhide went
+> up to 0.8.4, maybe 0.8.5 now), but for the versions up to and including 0.8.0,
+> here's the dynamics of the updates:
+>
+...
+> Indeed, Mageia does not have the number of packagers that Fedora has.
+> However, if Mageia's _policy_ is to rather have 6-7 months old versions in
+> updates, I should probably realize that Mageia is not for me.
+>
+> No, I have not, and never will use any repository called "backports". When a
+> newer stable  release of a distro is available, I should update to it if
+> updates I need are not pushed into Release N-1 "updates" (even if that release
+> is officially still supported with security patches), but again, "backports"
+> as Mandriva and Mageia are seeing them -- i.e. backporting
+> from  Cooker/Cauldron, not from "updates/testing" nor from "Release N+1"
+> -- does not fit my Zen.
+>
+> R-C
+
+In my mind you make an excellent case for upgrading this application from upstream, and installing 
+under /opt, as you say you do already.
+Which I do for Mozilla Seamonkey, for example, because of relatively frequent updates.  (In that 
+case I also apply some personal patches, but that is another question.)
+It is appropriate to report bugs for the application upstream.  The fixes will trickle down to Mageia.
+Just because you use Mageia (or any other distro) doesn't mean you can't install 3rd party 
+applications.  Although certainly it is preferable that most are packaged in Mageia.
+
+Which brings up another point.  Considering your concern for the application, maybe you would like 
+to package it for Mageia.  You could ensure that it is always up to date, and that it works 
+properly, and is properly supported.  (The packager is a key player in support.)
+Just because it is called a backport doesn't mean that it won't work.
+The packager mentoring program will help you get started :)
+
+-- 
+André
+