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/016921.html | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 113 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016921.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016921.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016921.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016921.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b0ad4b058 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2012-June/016921.html @@ -0,0 +1,113 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Backports Summary + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary

+ nicolas vigier + boklm at mars-attacks.org +
+ Wed Jun 27 16:08:10 CEST 2012 +

+
+ +
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
+
+>>> I would favour tagging backports as update repos, so that in the event
+>>> of a newer backport for security or bug fixes, that it will be
+>>> automatically presented with other updates.
+>>
+>> No.
+>> as the update applet currently works it would show the backport as
+>> an update even if you dont have an earlier backport installed,
+>> defeating the purpose of having separate /updates vs /backports
+>
+> This is conditional on first modifying the update tools, as suggested next.
+> A backport should only update an already installed backport.
+> (Similarly for nonfree and tainted, if that is not already the case.)
+
+We should not change the behaviour of medias tagged as update repo. If
+we want a different behaviour for backports then we should tag those
+medias as backport, not update.
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+

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