blob: 9de80c93708fdd9fa74a99595c127d4e81ab156e (
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
|
<!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=%3Cso7ja9-lc3.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="016421.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016425.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=%3Cso7ja9-lc3.ln1%40psd.motzarella.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">0123peter at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 12 09:30:03 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016421.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016425.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16420">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16420">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16420">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16420">[ 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>
</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
</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>><i>
</I>><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>
</I>><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>
This might be an interesting way to restate the problem...
Imagine that example package 1 (ex1) is in mga1 _at the time of release_.
Ex2 is in mga2 _at the time of release_.
Ex3 is in mga3 _at the time of release_.
Ex4 is in cauldron.
Ignore backports for a moment, and imagine that there has been a
monumental security breach in the example package such that
versions one and two are completely untrustworth and Ex3.1 is
recommended for everyone.
The obvious thing to do is push updates of Ex3.1 to mga3, mga2,
and mga1, in that order.
What happens to a system running mga1 plus updates when you
attempt to update it? Would the old ISOs be withdrawn?
Or re-released with Ex3.1?
Or would you have to wait for an emergency release of mga4?
Or could a separate "update" iso be released along side
the pre-existing isos?
Or could on-line updates be made compulsory?
--
blind Pete
Sig goes here...
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016421.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016425.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16420">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16420">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16420">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16420">[ 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>
|
