[Mageia-dev] Firefox 5

Fri Jun 24 00:18:55 CEST 2011

On 24 June 2011 00:06, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
+> Le jeudi 23 juin 2011 à 17:48 -0400, David W. Hodgins a écrit :
+>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:52:30 -0400, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3891 at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>
+>> > On 23 June 2011 07:58, Dexter Morgan <dmorganec at gmail.com> wrote:
+>>
+>> >> yes it needs to go to backports_testing before iirc
+>>
+>> > Got a link to a thread on -dev ML / irc meeting log / <insert your
+>> > favourite communication method here>, where this was decided?
+>>
+>> This mailing list, thread "Release cycles proposals, and discussion",
+>> messageid BANLkTimrPR-=UgQOnfvAkqPft80LNi9seQ at mail.gmail.com
+>>
+>> Where Anne posted ...
+>>
+>> > exactly what I had in mind. Having backports can allow choice between
+>> > "the last version of" and "the stable version with which I'm happy
+>> > with". But indeed we need more quality in backport rpms that is policy
+>> > and tests.
+>>
+>> In order for the qa team to perform the tests, before they go to the
+>> backports repository, they have to go to to the testing repository
+>> first.
+>>
+>> Something that works in cauldron may not work when moved to backports,
+>> if a dependency is missed.  By using backports_testing, we can catch
+>> that before it hits the average user.
+>
+> I think the question of ahmad was about "backport vs updates".
+> And I think firefox is suitable for the list of package exceptions that
+> should be backported rather than using a patch ( see
+> http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=updates_policy ).
+>
+> And so, since I guess everybody assume that ff and chromium can go in
+> the list, as they are unsupported upstream _and_ too complex to fix with
+> a patch.
+>
+> And to answer to am
+> --
+> Michael Scherer
+>
+>
+
+Actually no, I meant the submit to backports privileges vs. only being
+able to submit to backports_testing.
+
+-- 
+Ahmad Samir
+