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/2012-June/016454.html | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 100 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016454.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016454.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016454.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016454.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b1d284424 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016454.html @@ -0,0 +1,100 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion) + + + + + + + + + +

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

+ Angelo Naselli + anaselli at linux.it +
+ Wed Jun 13 13:52:48 CEST 2012 +

+
+ +
mercoledì 13 giugno 2012 alle 00:53, nicolas vigier ha scritto:
+> We are talking about backports, not updates, so we don't care about
+> versionning policy of updates. And backports can have higher version
+> than 'release' repository of next version, that's what this thread is
+> about.
+??? The policy should be the *same*, otherwise you won't have an upgradable
+system, something is in bp for n-1 could be:
+a) in core for n
+b) in update for n
+c) in bp for n
+In any of them it should be upgradable, so why shouldn't we
+follow the versioning policy for updates, since a bp for mageia n-1
+*is* an upgrade/update in mageia n?
+
+ennael could we add a point in tonight meeting? i seem we talked
+a lot and reached no decisions...
+
+Angelo
+-------------- next part --------------
+A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
+Name: not available
+Type: application/pgp-signature
+Size: 198 bytes
+Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
+URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20120613/93ff3496/attachment.asc>
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

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