1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Updates%20and%200%20release&In-Reply-To=%3C201107271659.37926.stormi%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="007056.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="007073.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release</H1>
<B>Samuel Verschelde</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Updates%20and%200%20release&In-Reply-To=%3C201107271659.37926.stormi%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release">stormi at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Jul 27 16:59:37 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="007056.html">[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="007073.html">[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#7072">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#7072">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#7072">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#7072">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le mercredi 27 juillet 2011 12:52:04, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
><i> Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 19:38:30, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
</I>><i> > Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 18:42:05, Michael Scherer a écrit :
</I>><i> > [snip]
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > > Yet, the problem would also be there for regular non-version upgrade
</I>><i> > > ( ie, if we have foo-2-2.mga2 in cauldron and stable, and that we need
</I>><i> > > to rebuild on stable and not on cauldron, we face the same problem ),
</I>><i> > > so using 0 is a incomplete solution to the issue, and the only
</I>><i> > > solution is to rebuild in cauldron, and such problem should better be
</I>><i> > > detected by youri.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Very good point, this is a decisive argument to me.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > > So, the conclusion is that we should test ugprade rather than assuming
</I>><i> > > that it will just work because we placed a 0 instead of a 1 somewhere.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Ok for me provided we put in place the necessary processes to avoid
</I>><i> > upgrade problems (Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence for example).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > > Now, using 0 prevent us from having a simple way of seeing what
</I>><i> > > prerelease we ship and that should be updated to latest stable ( as
</I>><i> > > this seems to me quite desirable ).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Good point too.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > > This is also inconsistent with the practice we had of backporting from
</I>><i> > > cooker ( as the initial goal at Mandriva was to have 0 modifications
</I>><i> > > from cooker to backports to reduce the load ). And if we ship something
</I>><i> > > in update and in backports, we would have the same packages with 2
</I>><i> > > different releases, and that doesn't seems a good idea.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Worse, the backport would be preferred to the update :/
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > You should have said all this right from the start rather than assuming
</I>><i> > that we would have all these elements in mind :)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Samuel
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I suggest we add this point to tonight's meeting topics and that a decision
</I>><i> be taken then.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Then we would adapt the updates policy and the current packages in
</I>><i> updates_testing if the 0 release in updates is abandoned. We must also
</I>><i> decide if we continue to use subrels or not (using them could avoid
</I>><i> unneeded rebuilds in cauldron when there are packaging bugs in updates).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Best regards
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Samuel
</I>
Ok, there will be no meeting tonight, so let's decide it on the ML. Was
everyone convinced by misc's demonstration and do we agree to stop using the 0
release for updates and activate the Youri::Submit::Test::Precedence check on
submit to prevent higher releases in mageia n than in mageia n+1 ?
And if yes do we use subrels for subsequent modifications of packages that are
proper to the mageia 1 branch ?
I vote yes for both questions.
Samuel
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="007056.html">[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="007073.html">[Mageia-dev] Updates and 0 release
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#7072">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#7072">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#7072">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#7072">[ 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>
|
