<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C1e6c417e696ae0eb5c9b065cd48e6790.squirrel%40mail.rmail.be%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016742.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016748.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media</H1>
<B>AL13N</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C1e6c417e696ae0eb5c9b065cd48e6790.squirrel%40mail.rmail.be%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media">alien at rmail.be
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Jun 22 12:53:56 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016742.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016748.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16744">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16744">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16744">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16744">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>><i> AL13N skrev 21.6.2012 21:09:
</I>>><i> Op donderdag 21 juni 2012 19:01:51 schreef Claire Robinson:
</I>>>>><i> since QA is waiting for a fix for this for a long time (pre-mga1), we
</I>>>>><i> should get this fixed asap.
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> PS: since we're enabling backports, we should make sure that the
</I>>>>><i> update
</I>>>>><i> validation process would have one of both required tests for
</I>>>>><i> validation
</I>>>>><i> with backports enabled and the other disabled.
</I>>><i> [...]
</I>>>><i> It is doubled now because we have two releases and most updates include
</I>>>><i> both. It will be effectively quadrupled with this plan and that would
</I>>>><i> be
</I>>>><i> unsustainable. We just don't have the manpower or enough hours in a
</I>>>><i> day,
</I>>>><i> we are struggling to cope as it is.
</I>>><i> [...]
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> actually, it doesn't need to be.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> you already test twice before validating updates, right?
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> so, there's 2 options:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> - testing i586 with backports enabled
</I>>><i> - testing x86_64 without backports enabled
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> this is still 2 tests, and this is sufficient.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> NO.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> First of all, _anything_ heading for updates that is not noarch needs
</I>><i> to be validated on both arches.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Secondly, when QA validate stuff for /updates, they dont need
</I>><i> to test _anything_ against backports as /updates is _only_ used to
</I>><i> fix stuff in /release & /updates.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> If something in backports breaks as a result of something going to
</I>><i> /updates, that's a separate bug against backported package and will
</I>><i> be handled after.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Remember that /updates is priority 1, and /backports is handled
</I>><i> as QA time permits at lower priority.
</I>
I do agree with you here, except that i'm trying to prevent this from
happening, because it's not something that can be easily fixed.
1. package A is backported into X
1b. package A-foo is backported into X-foo (subpackage)
2. package B is updated into Y at a later date
3. package update Y has a new dependency A-foo
4. person has X installed; but didn't install X-foo.
5. person updates B into Y
result is that Y pulls in as new dependency A-foo
but X conflicts with A-foo
so the update does not happen, and you get an ugly error.
my point is that:
1. since it's a new dependency, we can't know before we backport A that it
would be used as a new dependency for an update. because the update isn't
there yet, so we don't know beforehand.
2. more importantly, i don't see anyway to get this fixed without the user
manually fiddling with things (downgrading back to unbackported package;
or manually installing X-foo;)
Maybe i'm looking too far ahead, but unless i'm missing an obvious way to
cleanly fix this at the time of the update, this is still something we
should avoid.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016742.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016748.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16744">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16744">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16744">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16744">[ 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>