From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 108 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..16a64334c --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-October/008563.html @@ -0,0 +1,108 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Opening backports (was Re: [Mageia-sysadm] Using SQL database for youri) + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Opening backports (was Re: [Mageia-sysadm] Using SQL database for youri)

+ Samuel Verschelde + stormi at laposte.net +
+ Sat Oct 1 01:14:15 CEST 2011 +

+
+ +
Le samedi 1 octobre 2011 00:57:35, blind Pete a écrit :
+> on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:05
+> in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
+> 
+> Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+> > Op vrijdag 30 september 2011 23:35:40 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
+> >> Le jeudi 29 septembre 2011 21:10:42, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+> [snip]
+> 
+> >> > Also, the sooner we have backports, the less there will be external
+> >> > third- party repos with all the problems (upgrade, support) that
+> >> > causes. There already are, don't let them too much space and rather
+> >> > invite their packagers to backport *inside* (as long as they stay
+> >> > within the policy of course).
+> 
+> [snip]
+> 
+> >> If needed, the tremendous amount of packages in Blogdrake's 3rd party
+> >> media shows how much backports are needed by users, whatever we as
+> >> packagers can think of it.
+> >> 
+> >> I'm still convinced that opening backports right now, using one of my 2
+> >> proposals (if I haven't overlooked a technical difficulty), would be an
+> >> important step forward for us.
+> >> 
+> >> Best regards
+> >> 
+> >> Samuel
+> > 
+> > I have to agree, if opening backports brings in more packagers who are
+> > likely to integrate well AND bring in more users AND likely would step
+> > up and maintain similar packages, we should help their effort and not
+> > get our community too splintered, even though updates _is_ more
+> > important than backports.
+> 
+> Potentially silly idea:
+> 
+> Would it be worth having backports-supported and backports-unsupported,
+> or backports and backports-untested, or backports and backports-3rd-party?
+> 
+> You could occasionally move things in either direction between
+> supported and unsupported.
+
+You already have them: backports and backports_testing. backports is 
+supported, backports_testing isn't (equivalent to your backports-untested). 
+However, packages sent to backports_testing must respect the backports policy, 
+which is a difference with 3rd party media where we don't know what policy is 
+applied.
+
+Best regards
+
+Samuel Verschelde
+
+ + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1