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
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Missing%20packages%20in%20Mageia%201.%20How%20to%20backport%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201106111803.12179.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="005409.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005419.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?</H1>
<B>Samuel Verschelde</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Missing%20packages%20in%20Mageia%201.%20How%20to%20backport%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201106111803.12179.stormi%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?">stormi at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Jun 11 18:03:12 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005409.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005419.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5410">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5410">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5410">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5410">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le samedi 11 juin 2011 18:01:54, Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
><i> Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 16:55:00 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
</I>><i> > Le samedi 11 juin 2011 14:26:19, Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
</I>><i> > > Op zaterdag 11 juni 2011 13:14:29 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
</I>><i> > > > Le samedi 11 juin 2011 12:06:55, Christiaan Welvaart a écrit :
</I>><i> > > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Michael Scherer wrote:
</I>><i> > > > > > We can agree that everybody want something newer for some rpms,
</I>><i> > > > > > but few people want everything to be newer ( ie, now one run
</I>><i> > > > > > backports as a update media, I think ). So as much as I am
</I>><i> > > > > > against asking to users questions, we must show them the choice
</I>><i> > > > > > somewhere, in a non obstrusive way.
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > Maybe, but how would be "support" this? We must be able to
</I>><i> > > > > reproduce a reported problem. This becomes complicated when we
</I>><i> > > > > don't know what is installed on the user's system. A guideline for
</I>><i> > > > > bug reporters is (or should be) "make sure you installed the
</I>><i> > > > > latest updates". What would be the equivalent for backports? I'm
</I>><i> > > > > afraid it should be "if you installed any backports, make sure you
</I>><i> > > > > installed all backports that are relevant for your system". If
</I>><i> > > > > someone has a problem with any other combination, the bug report
</I>><i> > > > > might be rejected. How would QA even work when only selected
</I>><i> > > > > packages are upgraded from backports, or integration testing:
</I>><i> > > > > integration with what?
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > So the only combinations we can support are:
</I>><i> > > > > - release + updates
</I>><i> > > > > - release + updates + backports
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > More practical: for mga1 I have a VM that I can keep updated. For
</I>><i> > > > > mga1 backports I can install another VM with backports enabled. But
</I>><i> > > > > for bugs reported with only selected backports installed I suppose
</I>><i> > > > > I would have to install a new VM with mga1, update it, and install
</I>><i> > > > > only those backports -
</I>><i> > > > >
</I>><i> > > > > for each bug report. But maybe I'm missing something, please
</I>><i> > > > > explain.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> (:
</I>><i> > > > If we suppose that either updates or backports are supported (with a
</I>><i> > > > support level to be defined), the situation is simpler to me : a
</I>><i> > > > good backport must work with all its dependencies coming from
</I>><i> > > > updates or release OR it must explicitly require higher versions,
</I>><i> > > > found only in the backports media and so automatically pulled.
</I>><i> > > >
</I>><i> > > > So I don't think that having picked up only certain backported
</I>><i> > > > packages is a problem for the maintainer's support. Maybe I
</I>><i> > > > over-simplified the situation, but I don't think it will be as
</I>><i> > > > complex as you say.
</I>><i> > > >
</I>><i> > > > Samuel
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > imho this creates more work for packagers or qa team to support
</I>><i> > > backports, i'm not really in favor of this solution
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > So it someone has a problem with a package you backported and reports it
</I>><i> > in bugzilla, you'll answer "not supported" and close the door ? Then we
</I>><i> > have not a single chance to have users accept to use backports rather
</I>><i> > than ask for a rolling release (supposing that we want to stay with
</I>><i> > stable releases model, which hasn't been decided yet).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > In my opinion, a backport must be either supported or not exist. Even in
</I>><i> > Mandriva, where everybody keep saying "backports ain't supported",
</I>><i> > usually people try to solve the problems caused by backports.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > However, the level of support can be different between backports and
</I>><i> > updates, as I said in my previous message. The differences are yet to
</I>><i> > define, but here are some I see :
</I>><i> > - when a critical bug in a backport exists, you can simply update to a
</I>><i> > newer version and see if it's solved
</I>><i> > - if the program already is in its the latest version and has an upstream
</I>><i> > bug, you can answer "report the bug upstream" and stop there until
</I>><i> > upstream solves the bug. For packages in release or updates, ideally you
</I>><i> > have to try to help fixing it or work it around because the bug is
</I>><i> > considered part of the whole distribution.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Best regards
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > Samuel
</I>><i>
</I>><i> What about security fixes? if there's 1 version in release and 10 in
</I>><i> backports? do the older backported packages have to be securitypatched?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> imho not supported backports means that if backports has an issue, try a
</I>><i> newer backports...
</I>><i>
</I>><i> imho that is a good level, that doesn't require much effort.
</I>
I think we agree, because if we follow the Mandriva way, upload of a new
backport for a given package removes the old one if there is one. So at a
given time, you only have to support the package in release or updates + 0 or
1 backport.
Samuel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20110611/cd906686/attachment.html>
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005409.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005419.html">[Mageia-dev] Missing packages in Mageia 1. How to backport?
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5410">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5410">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5410">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5410">[ 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>
|
