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

Sat Oct 1 07:04:44 CEST 2011

on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:14
+in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
+Samuel Verschelde wrote:
+
+> 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
+
+That makes sense.  
+
+I imagine that it would be fairly easy to get stuff into 
+Tainted Backports Testing.  
+
+
+