[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2

Wed Jan 4 19:09:14 CET 2012

On 04.01.2012 19:29, Michael Scherer wrote:
+> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 16:16 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+>> On 04.01.2012 11:54, Michael Scherer wrote:
+>>> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 11:03 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
+>>>> Anssi Hannula skrev 3.1.2012 23:05:
+>>>>> On 02.01.2012 12:21, guillomovitch wrote:
+>>>>>> Name        : dsniff                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
+>>>>>> Version     : 2.4                               Vendor: Mageia.Org
+>>>>>> Release     : 0.b1.1.mga2                   Build Date: Mon Jan  2 11:18:17 2012
+>>>>>> Install Date: (not installed)               Build Host: ecosse
+>>>>>> Group       : Monitoring                    Source RPM: (none)
+>>>>>> Size        : 210074                           License: BSD
+>>>>>> Signature   : (none)
+>>>>>> Packager    : guillomovitch<guillomovitch>
+>>>>>> URL         : http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/
+>>>>>> Summary     : Network audit tools
+>>>>>> Description :
+>>>>>> Tools to audit network and to demonstrate the insecurity of cleartext
+>>>>>> network protocols. Please do not abuse this software.
+>>>>>>
+>>>>>> guillomovitch<guillomovitch>  2.4-0.b1.1.mga2:
+>>>>>> + Revision: 189630
+>>>>>> - drop epoch, we don't care about updating from mdv anymore
+>>>>>
+>>>>> We don't?
+>>>>>
+>>>>
+>>>> Oh yes we do. Atleast from 2010.1
+>>>
+>>> We did for 1, not for 2 or cauldron or anything else. So as long the
+>>> package is not pushed on 1, I think we agreed that people could not care
+>>> about upgrade path from Mandriva.
+>>
+>> Well, I don't like that, IMO we should not remove upgradeability so
+>> soon, even if we won't officially support it.
+> 
+> Well, if we do not officially support it, then we do not support it,
+> that's all. There is no "that's unofficially supported" or stuff like
+> that. Supported mean "we will do test and fix bug if they happen", and
+> not supported mean "we reserve our right to not do anything".
+> 
+> And that's exactly what happen right now.
+
+IMO there is a level between "officially supported" and "we
+intentionally break it", which means that we advise against it but do
+not hinder people from doing it.
+
+Also, I personally do fix any upgradeability bugs for the last several
+releases if such are reported to me (though you are right that I do not
+specifically test them, hence "unsupported".
+
+>> But anyway, this affects people doing 2010.1->mga1->mga2 as well... Or
+>> are you saying that isn't supported either, and people should do new
+>> installs??
+> 
+> We do not support upgrading mdv2010.1 rpms with rpm from mga2, so if a
+> maintainer want to remove this, he can.
+> 
+> Someone doing mdv2010.1->mga1 will end with a mix of mdv2010.1 and mga1
+> if the system is not cleaned, and that's not something we should
+> support, not more than mga X + any random repository upgrade to mga X+1 
+> 
+> IE, that's not mga1 -> mga2, that's mga1 + 3rd party repo that happened
+> to work by chance to mga2. 
+
+I have to strongly disagree with this. If upgrading from 2010.1 to mga1
+is officially supported (and it is), we can't say "you can't upgrade
+your mga1 system to mga2 anymore because you have some old pkgs
+installed which we never asked you to remove" (assuming no non-mdv 3rd
+party repos here).
+
+Upgrading the distribution via path N -> N+1 -> N+2 -> N+3 -> N+4
+(without extra repositories) should *always* be supported, and I see no
+reason to break that for the mdv->mga transition point either.
+
+-- 
+Anssi Hannula
+