[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal

Thu Jun 30 23:55:42 CEST 2011

Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+>
+> Le mardi 28 juin 2011 03:44:24, andre999 a écrit :
+>>
+>> 2) Backports would not be removed from repos when a newer backport arrives,
+>> except those affected by security updates.
+>> This allows reverting to previous backports if a user finds a problem with
+>> a backport on their system.
+>
+> I'd prefer that we don't keep multiple backports versions in the repositories,
+> for the sake of simplicity. Users who ask for the latest must accept that
+> sometimes the latest is not the greatest. Plus, we have the backports_testing
+> repos so that users can test and spot bugs before the old backport is replaced
+> with the new one.
+>
+> I want stable : don't use backports.
+> I want the latest : use backports.
+> I want an intermediate version : no, sorry, your need is too specific. You can
+> still compile it.
+
+I'm trying to consider the needs of a typical backport user, who needs to revert 
+to a previous version of a backport already installed, due to problems with a 
+newer backport.
+A problem which will often affect only some users installing the particular 
+backport.
+
+They won't activate the backport repository.  So when installing backports, they 
+will only see a list of backports (at least via rpmdrake).
+They are not necessarily familiar with compiling (unlike most of us).
+
+Suppose for a package release A we have issued backports B and C.
+If B causes problems on a particular system, the user reverts to A.
+No problem.
+If a user has installed B, which worked well for them,
+  and subsequently installes C which has problems,
+  they would like to revert to B.
+(Reverting to A could cause a loss of data as well as functionality.)
+
+So why tell the user that they can't revert to a backport version that already 
+worked for them ?
+
+I would suggest a message such as :
+"users installing backports should install the latest version for the package 
+unless they need to revert to a previous version due to problems"
+(To appear only when they have chosen to install backports.)
+
+I realise that this complicates the presentation, and maybe another solution 
+could be found.
+(For example, saving all backports packages installed on a system, so that they 
+can be reinstalled.)
+(A case-by-case analysis of new backports could show which previous backports 
+could be safely removed, for minor changes such as simple bug fixes.)
+
+Or maybe make these backports only visible with urpmi, so that users of the 
+graphic interfaces won't see them.  (As someone else suggested.)
+This would of course require the graphic interfaces to avoid displaying these 
+older backports, but would provide the other advantages of keeping the backports.
+
+Keeping previous backports would facilitate producing security updates for all 
+backports actually installed on various user's systems.
+This adds some complexity for security updates, in exchange for greater security.
+
+> Samuel
+
+-- 
+André
+