[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media

Fri Jun 22 17:59:32 CEST 2012

Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 11:58:10 schreef Claire Robinson:
+> > suppose that only blender and firefox and gimp and java is backported. any
+> > kind of combination would have to be tested to be able to support
+> > backports:
+> > - testing backports blender on a system without backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only firefox
+> > installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only gimp
+> > installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only java
+> > installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
+> > and gimp installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
+> > and java installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both gimp and
+> > java installed from backports
+> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and firefox and
+> > gimp and java installed from backports
+> > 
+> > This for each arch: thus 16 tests.
+> > 
+> > This amount of tests is a direct result of trying to support backports
+> > when you can have any single backported package installed, that you want.
+> 
+> I think you are misunderstanding the kind of support we can offer for
+> backports. See Thomas's email. We will test a package installs and
+> works. We don't plan on supporting updates against already installed
+> backports, at least none that I'm aware of and if so then we maybe ought
+> to rethink opening backports altogether.
+
+exactly, at this point, since noone thinks having supported backports is 
+feasably, i think we should just have backports being unsupported, less QA 
+that way too.
+
+because i'd hate to have "supported backports", but breaking updates in the 
+process...
+
+> We obviously support updates against already installed updates. If that
+> happens to break a backported package then that is not our main concern.
+> We certainly have no plans to add an extra layer of testing to regular
+> updates to check for that. I've never used a distro where backports were
+> treated that way and we absolutely do not have the manpower in QA to
+> support it. I'm not sure what other way to say it. I apologise if that
+> narrows the options on backports policy but this is the reality of it.
+> 
+> That though is a separate discussion (or should be) and not related to
+> fixing bug 2317.
+
+indeed.
+
+