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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%20of%20a%20backporting%20process&In-Reply-To=%3C4E0B7ACE.9030300%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="006138.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="006070.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%20of%20a%20backporting%20process&In-Reply-To=%3C4E0B7ACE.9030300%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process">andr55 at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Jun 29 21:19:42 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006138.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="006070.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#6142">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#6142">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#6142">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#6142">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Michael Scherer a écrit :
><i> Le mercredi 29 juin 2011 à 10:56 +0200, Angelo Naselli a écrit :
</I>>><i> mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 00:23, andre999 ha scritto:
</I>>>><i> A leaf package is a package that is not required by any other package.
</I>>>><i> But leaf packages will always require something else.
</I>>>><i> If B requires A, then A is not a leaf package, even though B could be.
</I>>>><i> When backporting B, we test to make sure that it works with release A.
</I>>>><i> Obviously it restricts what can be backported, but the trade-off is that backports will
</I>>>><i> (almost always) work, and they won't break anything.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Well my point is i often backport something for my job (for the most
</I>>><i> commoncpp2 now, ucommon in future), and since they are libraries i can fall
</I>>><i> in errors. I always tested before backporting though, and i haven't had any problems
</I>>><i> upgrading, but that's me and i could have been lucky.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> If we can accept some exceptions from time to time, but proved (bug open, testing
</I>>><i> and updates/backports etc) i can think to have mageia not only at home or in a virtual
</I>>><i> box. Otherwise i can't see the need of backports, for me of course.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> If we start to add exception while we do not even have started to agree
</I>><i> on the general case, we are never gonna go anywhere :)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I have the impression that everybody want to be able at the same time to
</I>><i> backport anything, and yet expect to have the same level of support and
</I>><i> quality, and without using any more ressources.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Technically, anything could be backported with proper tests. After all,
</I>><i> that's roughly the process we use for cauldron ( ie, take a new version
</I>><i> of software, compile it on the distribution, and build later others
</I>><i> software against that ).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Every software have someone interested, from low level like kernel
</I>><i> ( backported on kernel-linus, asked by people as seen on MIB ), or gcc
</I>><i> ( gcc 4.6 being my main motivation for keeping a cooker installation )
</I>><i> to higher level like gajim or midori. The only thing that no one would
</I>><i> be interested is stuff that do not move ( at, linpng, etc ), ie
</I>><i> everything were there is no new features, and working fine. And even,
</I>><i> people could want to have a new feature, such as systemd, etc.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So in the end, if we want to satisfy everybody, the answer is to have no
</I>><i> policy forbidding anything and just say "do proper amount of QA". That's
</I>><i> fine by me ( especially since I do not use backports ), but we have to
</I>><i> agree on that.
</I>
I see this as an argument for having simple, clean basic rules (the "general case"), on
which we can have well-defined exceptions, some (or all) of which may require
case-by-case approval.
So let's accept the initial proposal as the base rules.
Then define some well-defined exceptions, for use cases that fall outside these base
rules. And whether each particular exception should require case-by-case approval.
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="006138.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="006070.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal of a backporting process
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#6142">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#6142">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#6142">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#6142">[ 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>
|
