<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposed%20Feature%3ABackports_update_applet&In-Reply-To=%3Cs31ja9-r9v.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016331.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016427.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet</H1>
<B>blind Pete</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposed%20Feature%3ABackports_update_applet&In-Reply-To=%3Cs31ja9-r9v.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet">0123peter at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 12 07:36:27 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016331.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016427.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16412">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16412">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16412">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16412">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>andre999 wrote:
><i> blind Pete a écrit :
</I>>><i> Samuel Verschelde wrote:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i>
</I>>>><i> Following Backports opening due soon, and since our policy is that
</I>>>><i> backports are supported (security, bugfix), we need a way to push
</I>>>><i> backport updates for users who installed backports. Otherwise, we can't
</I>>>><i> really say that we're providing security updates to our backports.
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> My feature proposal is to implement something similar to what mgaonline
</I>>>><i> + MageiaUpdate does for updates, but for backports, with some changes
</I>>>><i> due to the fact that users will rarely want that "all" packages on the
</I>>>><i> system be updated from backports when the backports media are activated.
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> <A HREF="https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Feature:Backports_update_applet">https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Feature:Backports_update_applet</A>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> I don't think I can do the dev myself. I can work on more detailed
</I>>>><i> specifications with a developer though.
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> Samuel
</I>>>><i>
</I>>><i> There are a multiple ways that this problem could be handled.
</I>>><i> Yours is one.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Samuel's way:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Need "something" to know that a backport package
</I>>><i> has been installed, to remember that fact, and to do an extra
</I>>><i> backport update search when looking for updates.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> It would need to keep working if the user changed desktop
</I>>><i> environments, or even stopped used a desktop and just used
</I>>><i> the command line. Does mgaonline do this? There could be
</I>>><i> room to improve that.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> If it can be detected that a backport package has been installed
</I>>><i> (or less efficiently, detect that a backports repository
</I>>><i> has been activated) set up a cron job (or reconfigure mgaonline)
</I>>><i> and leave it like that for the life of the installation.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Geeks way:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Only use urpmi as a command line tool and edit urpmi.cfg with vi.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> When activating a backports repository mark it as an update
</I>>><i> repository. Then update with "urpmi --excludemedia [backport media,
</I>>><i> ...]" accepting all suggestions, followed by "urpmi --auto-select"
</I>>><i> and look at what is offered before accepting.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> My suggestion:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Add "bp" to the package name and have separate backports update
</I>>><i> repositories.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Users would then be able to cherry pick from backports and
</I>>><i> updates should _just work_ without extra intervention.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> The only difficulty that I can think of is, when a backport
</I>>><i> (or backport update) package is pushed to updates. It would
</I>>><i> not be necessary to do a real update but the rpm database
</I>>><i> should be updated such that version N-bp supersedes version N.
</I>>><i> (And the N-bp packages should be removed from the repositories.)
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Can anyone see any holes in the logic?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> What would be easiest to implement?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> You got me thinking :)
</I>
Thinking is always dangerous. ;-)
><i> - Just marking all backport repos as update repos is almost enough to
</I>><i> solve the problem, in terms of the tools installing the backports.
</I>><i> Great idea !
</I>><i> We just have to tweak the tools so that a backport is only installed as
</I>><i> an update of a backport.
</I>
Because the contents of the backport repositories changes during
the life of an installation it is desirable to... well... um...
"update" the database about that.
><i> - Note that we should allow a non-backport to replace a backport, as
</I>><i> will likely be encountered in a release update. If the versioning is
</I>><i> properly done (according to established packaging policy), a
</I>><i> non-backport in a newer release will have a higher version number, thus
</I>><i> replacing the backport.
</I>
If they had the same version number you would not want to do a
real update, but you might want to adjust the database. I have
no idea if that would be more trouble than it is worth.
><i> - Functioning as an update, it would only replace already installed
</I>><i> backports, once the tools are appropriately adjusted.
</I>
There are a couple of ways to do that. The simplest that I can think
of is to split "backports" into "backports" and "backports update".
Allow cherry picking from "backports" and apply "backports update"
automatically.
><i> - As with any update repo, one could always explicitly install a
</I>><i> backport which is not already installed. No special treatment is
</I>><i> required for this.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> - using "bp" in the file name is nice and short, and definitively marks
</I>><i> it as a backport for the tools, and for the user once installed. (I
</I>><i> would put it in the revision field.)
</I>><i> I like this approach, as it doesn't matter from where the package is
</I>><i> installed; it will always be recognized as a backport.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So I'm suggesting a variation of the last 2 solutions.
</I>><i> I think that this would be relatively easy to implement.
</I>><i> The trick is to find the right place in the code for the tweaks.
</I>><i> (tv could probably do it really fast.)
</I>><i>
</I>
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016331.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016427.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16412">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16412">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16412">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16412">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>