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
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Question%20about%20backports%3A%20calibre%20%28bug%201659%29&In-Reply-To=%3C135732.51735.qm%40web161707.mail.bf1.yahoo.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005615.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005642.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)</H1>
<B>Radu-Cristian FOTESCU</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Question%20about%20backports%3A%20calibre%20%28bug%201659%29&In-Reply-To=%3C135732.51735.qm%40web161707.mail.bf1.yahoo.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)">beranger5ca at yahoo.ca
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 14 18:12:49 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005615.html">[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005642.html">[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5638">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5638">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5638">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5638">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>><i> Release frequency never was a criteria for differentiating between
</I>><i> pushing something to updates and something to backports.
</I>
It should be. Otherwise, we should all be using OpenOffice.org 1.0.1. --
security issues set aside.
><i> And I see no reason why it would be in favor of doing a bug fix update
</I>><i> rather than a backport, especially if we ask to do a more stringent QA
</I>><i> checking on updates, as it would put too much work on the team.
</I>
Because Mageia (and Mandriva)'s vision of the concept of "backports" is not
compatible with my common-sense.
I have not used Mandriva very much in the past, because I hate the concept of
"backports" -- yes, Ubuntu does them too, but Ubuntu backports are totally
unsupported, so you can imagine their "quality"...
I'd rather stick to "updates" -- this is also the reason I stopped using
Debian, because the morons (yes, morons) were only pushing tzdata updates
in "volatile", not in "updates", whereas ALL the other distro weres pushing
tzdata updates in "updates".
If Mageia considers that a 6-7 months old package (for an application that
released 32 times in the meantime) only deserves updates in "backports",
then I will probably stop reporting any possible bugs with this distro
-- as a protest.
It is indeed a matter of principle. I am personally using the latest
calibre installed in /opt, not the official one, but again, it's a
matter of principle.
Whatever is important and comes from upstream  should go into updates IMHO.
Backports, in my view, only make sense if they're  coming from Release N+1
*and* if they represent a major version bump -- such as FF4 over FF3.6, etc.
WRT calibre, Fedora has a simple way: it keeps a newer calibre packages in
updates/testing for 1 week, and if no user complains about regressions, it
goes into updates. This is because calibre is a "leaf" package -- no other
package depends on it, so it only impacts those who are using it.
><i> Again, that's not a criteria. Every software is important to at least
</I>><i> one person, and that would mean we should update everything if we start
</I>><i> to update everything important to one group of users.
</I>
I can see how important is calibre to Mageia users. Nobody noticed or cared
that it is an antiquated version. They could have as well used notepad.exe
from Win95.
><i> And for what it is worth, Fedora is discussing having separate update
</I>><i> and backport ( <A HREF="https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515">https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515</A> ), even if the
</I>><i> discussion seems to be going nowhere at the moment
</I>
BS. I hope Fedora *never* uses backports!
Their update policy is very clear *and* flexible:
<A HREF="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy</A>
Please note these:
"Exceptions: Some classes of software will not fit in these guidelines.
If your package does not fit in one of the classes below, but you think
it should be allowed to update more rapidly . . .
Things that would make it more likely to grant a request:
--  The package is a "leaf" node. Nothing depends on it or requires it."
Calibre is a "leaf" package.
If not, in the same document:
"All other updates must either:
-- reach the criteria laid out in the previous section OR
-- reach the positive Bodhi karma threshold specified by the updates submitter OR
-- spend some minimum amount of time in updates-testing, currently one week."
I am not sure why F15 stopped updating calibre to 0.8.0 in updates (Rawhide went
up to 0.8.4, maybe 0.8.5 now), but for the versions up to and including 0.8.0,
here's the dynamics of the updates:
ChangeLog:
* Fri May 6 2011 Kevin Fenzi <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">kevin at xxxxxxxxx</A>> - 0.8.0-1
- Update to 0.8.0
* Wed May 4 2011 Dan HorÃak <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">dan at xxxxxxxx</A>> - 0.7.59-2
- rebuilt against podofo 0.9.1
* Sat Apr 30 2011 Kevin Fenzi <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">kevin at xxxxxxxxx</A>> - 0.7.59-1
- Update to 0.7.59
* Fri Apr 22 2011 Kevin Fenzi <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">kevin at xxxxxxxxx</A>> - 0.7.57-1
- Update to 0.7.57
(F15 was released with 0.7.56)
Indeed, Mageia does not have the number of packagers that Fedora has.
However, if Mageia's _policy_ is to rather have 6-7 months old versions in
updates, I should probably realize that Mageia is not for me.
No, I have not, and never will use any repository called "backports". When a
newer stable  release of a distro is available, I should update to it if
updates I need are not pushed into Release N-1 "updates" (even if that release
is officially still supported with security patches), but again, "backports"
as Mandriva and Mageia are seeing them -- i.e. backporting
from  Cooker/Cauldron, not from "updates/testing" nor from "Release N+1"
-- does not fit my Zen.
R-C
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005615.html">[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005642.html">[Mageia-dev] Question about backports: calibre (bug 1659)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5638">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5638">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5638">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5638">[ 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>
|
