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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20clarification%20%28and%20discussion%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4FD207FB.7060805%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016272.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016289.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20policy%20clarification%20%28and%20discussion%29&In-Reply-To=%3C4FD207FB.7060805%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Jun 8 16:11:07 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016272.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016289.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16288">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16288">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16288">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16288">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Sander Lepik a écrit :
><i> 08.06.2012 11:38, Samuel Verschelde kirjutas:
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> I re-read the backports policy, and there's a part I think needs to be pointed
</I>>><i> out before people start to backport packages.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> "We need to ensure that upgrades never fail: cauldron must always have a
</I>>><i> higher version/release than in stable releases."
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> This statement is true, but implies more than what it says. It means that we
</I>>><i> can't backport a package for Mageia 1 with a higher version than what we have
</I>>><i> in Mageia 2 release (and updates?) media. And this, until we are able to take
</I>>><i> backports into account during upgrades.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Example :
</I>>><i> - Mageia 2 has wesnoth 1.10.2 in core/release
</I>>><i> - Mageia 1 can't get a higher version in its backports media
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Do you all agree with my understanding of the policy ?
</I>>><i>
</I>
I see your point.
In most cases, a backport for mga1 would be essentially identical for
mga2 (except package file name and corresponding changes in the spec file).
It would only differ if dependancies differ, which I suspect is unlikely
for wesnoth or most other games, for example.
So this means that for a backport to mga1, we should first do one to mga2.
This would more than likely be done at the same time by the same
packager, so not much more work.
The demand for backports to mga1 is not likely to be very high, and
would depend on a willing packager.
>><i> This is a serious limitation to our ability to backport to Mageia (n-1) and
</I>>><i> even to our ability to provide security fixes to backports there (will not
</I>>><i> prevent it, but will prevent to do it by a version upgrade, which is the
</I>>><i> common way to fix that kind of issue in backports).
</I>>><i>
</I>
If we already have a backport with versions in mga2 and mga1, applying
security fixes to both would not likely be much more involved than only
to mga2. If it only applies to mga1, as long as the version is lower
than that in mga2, we can always ensure that the version of the update
remains lower. Similarly for mga2 with respect to cauldron.
>><i> Maybe we shouldn't open backports for Mageia 1, and make sure upgrade to
</I>>><i> Mageia 3 can take backports from Mageia 2 into account so that backports to
</I>>><i> Mageia 2 are not stopped when Mageia 3 is released. Then we'll be safe.
</I>>><i>
</I>
Not to worry :)
>><i> Samuel
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> I think backports should be open until new stable is released. So we should not open
</I>><i> backports for mga1 and when mga2 is released then backports for mga2 will be closed.
</I>><i> It's the only way we can manage upgrades with our current packager resources.
</I>><i>
</I>
A backport isn't going to happen without a packager willing to package
it. There is no point in arbitrarily blocking backports to supported
releases for this reason.
Although I would agree that there is not likely to be many backports to
mga1, because of this and the lower priority in QA, as well as the
understanding that the user requesting the backport would be implicated
in testing it.
><i> --
</I>><i> Sander
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016272.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016289.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16288">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16288">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16288">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16288">[ 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>
|
