[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)

Fri Jun 8 20:40:04 CEST 2012

Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 16:58:24, andre999 a écrit :
+> Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+> > Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 16:11:07, andre999 a écrit :
+> >> Sander Lepik a écrit :
+> >>> 08.06.2012 11:38, Samuel Verschelde kirjutas:
+> >>>> I re-read the backports policy, and there's a part I think needs to be
+> >>>> pointed out before people start to backport packages.
+> >>>> 
+> >>>> "We need to ensure that upgrades never fail: cauldron must always have
+> >>>> a higher version/release than in stable releases."
+> >>>> 
+> >>>> This statement is true, but implies more than what it says. It means
+> >>>> that we can't backport a package for Mageia 1 with a higher version
+> >>>> than what we have in Mageia 2 release (and updates?) media. And this,
+> >>>> until we are able to take backports into account during upgrades.
+> >>>> 
+> >>>> Example :
+> >>>> - Mageia 2 has wesnoth 1.10.2 in core/release
+> >>>> - Mageia 1 can't get a higher version in its backports media
+> >>>> 
+> >>>> Do you all agree with my understanding of the policy ?
+> >> 
+> >> I see your point.
+> >> In most cases, a backport for mga1 would be essentially identical for
+> >> mga2 (except package file name and corresponding changes in the spec
+> >> file). It would only differ if dependancies differ, which I suspect is
+> >> unlikely for wesnoth or most other games, for example.
+> >> So this means that for a backport to mga1, we should first do one to
+> >> mga2. This would more than likely be done at the same time by the same
+> >> packager, so not much more work.
+> >> The demand for backports to mga1 is not likely to be very high, and
+> >> would depend on a willing packager.
+> > 
+> > I think you missed my point. If Mageia 1 "backports" has higher versions
+> > than Mageia 2 "release" (not backports), upgrade can fail because
+> > currently our tools do not take backports from the target release
+> > (mageia 2) into account when upgrading a distro.
+> > 
+> > Samuel
+> 
+> But wouldn't current tools update backports if backports are active ?
+
+No, they wouldn't :)
+