blob: 9e4ac2dd79d72abaea0c94b85c8a8c11c2899376 (
plain)
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
|
<!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=%3Cg89ba9-arf.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016317.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016316.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)</H1>
<B>blind Pete</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=%3Cg89ba9-arf.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">0123peter at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Jun 9 09:06:22 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016317.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016316.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16311">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16311">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16311">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16311">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Samuel Verschelde wrote:
><i> I re-read the backports policy, and there's a part I think needs to be
</I>><i> pointed out before people start to backport packages.
</I>
I haven't, so if I get things badly wrong don't hesitate to tell me.
><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
</I>><i> we can't backport a package for Mageia 1 with a higher version than what
</I>><i> we have in Mageia 2 release (and updates?) media. And this, until we are
</I>><i> able to take 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>
No. Well assuming that the backports policy is sane, then no.
- Mageia 1 can not get a higher version into _updates_ until
the new version (or an even higher one) has made its way into
Mageia 2 _updates_.
- Mageia 1 can not get a higher version into _backports_ until
the new version (or an even higher one) has made its way into
Mageia 2 _backports_.
><i> This is a serious limitation to our ability to backport to Mageia (n-1)
</I>><i> and even to our ability to provide security fixes to backports there (will
</I>><i> not prevent it, but will prevent to do it by a version upgrade, which is
</I>><i> the common way to fix that kind of issue in backports).
</I>
I don't see it.
Most backports will have a version not higher than the which
is provided by the next release and so will just not be a problem.
Even in the *very* strange situation that the back ported package has a
version number that is higher than that of the next release it is
workable, all that is needed is the requirement that backports are
not made available to release N before they are made available to
release N+1 (Cauldron counts as a release) and that backport media
be available at upgrade time.
><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
</I>><i> to Mageia 2 are not stopped when Mageia 3 is released. Then we'll be safe.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Samuel
</I>
Extreme hypothetical example:
Cauldron Core has long term support FF 29 and Cauldron Backports
has this week's official release of FF 41.
Mageia 5 gets released with Core and Core Backports. Sensible
users get the long term support version. Insane fools who are
trying to use the notoriously broken FF 35 get FF 41 (which is
broken in a different way).
--
blind Pete
Sig goes here...
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016317.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016316.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16311">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16311">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16311">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16311">[ 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>
|
