[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary

Wed Jun 27 20:27:15 CEST 2012

nicolas vigier a écrit :
+> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
+>
+>    
+>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
+>>      
+>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
+>>>
+>>>
+>>>        
+>>>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
+>>>>
+>>>>          
+>>>>> 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.
+>>>>>
+>>>>>
+>>>>>            
+>>>> The idea is, once the tools are appropriately adjusted, to tag the backport
+>>>> repos as update media, as in rpmdrake.  But alternately we could get the
+>>>> update tools to automatically treat backport repos as update media for
+>>>> backports.
+>>>>
+>>>>          
+>>> backports are not updates, why should we tag them as update ?
+>>>
+>>>        
+>> If you are talking about the packages themselves, of course _backports
+>> packages_ should be tagged as backports, and regular update packages as
+>> updates.
+>>      
+> packages themselves are not tagged as backports or updates.
+>
+>    
+>> However talking about _backport repos_, exactly how we tag them is
+>> arbitrary.
+>> Although obviously backports are updates relative to the initial release in
+>> question, so it is not unreasonable to tag the backport repos as updates.
+>>      
+> backports and updates repos need to be handled differently by
+> urpmi/rpmdrake. So they should be tagged differently. Is it so hard to
+> understand ?
+>    
+
+Backport packages and update packages need to be handled differently.
+This can be more reliably dealt with by tagging the backport packages 
+themselves.
+As a user could copy the backport to any location, it won't necessarily 
+be installed from a backport repo.
+Which I and others have already suggested numerous times in previous 
+threads.
+By tagging the package in the name (someone suggested using "bp"), it 
+could be readily determined by any user that a package is a backport.
+My suggestion of tagging the backport repos as updates was recognizing 
+an obvious fact, which apparently is used by installer tools.  
+(Otherwise why bother ?)
+And indeed, backports will be used as updates, albeit only to already 
+installed backports.
+
+-- 
+André
+
+