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
|
<!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=%3C4FD72157.5010002%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016568.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016567.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=%3C4FD72157.5010002%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 12 13:00:39 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016568.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016567.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16428">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16428">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16428">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16428">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>blind Pete a écrit :
><i> andre999 wrote:
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> blind Pete a écrit :
</I>>><i>
</I>>>><i> Samuel Verschelde wrote:
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 20:20:54, David W. Hodgins a écrit :
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:22:41 -0400, Samuel Verschelde
</I>>>>>><i> <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">stormi at laposte.net</A>>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> wrote:
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i> I think you missed my point. If Mageia 1 "backports" has higher
</I>>>>>>><i> versions than Mageia 2 "release" (not backports), upgrade can fail
</I>>>>>>><i> because currently our tools do not take backports from the target
</I>>>>>>><i> release (mageia 2) into account when upgrading a distro.
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> In the upgrade from Mandriva 2010.2 to Mageia 1, it was made clear,
</I>>>>>><i> that
</I>>>>>><i> upgrading from a system with 2010.2 Backports was not supported. It
</I>>>>>><i> may work, but was not recommended.
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> I think we should keep the same policy for the upgrade from Mageia 1 to
</I>>>>>><i> 2.
</I>>>>>><i> I.E. Don't use backports if you are planning on later doing an
</I>>>>>><i> upgrade, rather then a clean install.
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> That way, Mageia 1 users who want firefox 13 can get it, without us
</I>>>>>><i> having to replace the Mageia 2 iso images with an upgraded installer,
</I>>>>>><i> that will keep backports enabled for 2, if it was enabled for 1.
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>><i> Current tools will correctly update backports much of the time. (From
</I>>><i> my experience.)
</I>>><i> The tools just need to be reworked somewhat to ensure that backports are
</I>>><i> updated correctly all of the time.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> Regards, Dave Hodgins
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> Again, this is not the policy we adopted. When we defined the backports
</I>>>>><i> policy (together, although it seems most people are just discovering it
</I>>>>><i> now) we said that we didn't want to have backports that don't work,
</I>>>>><i> break a system, or prevent upgrade.
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> However, I think that for DVD upgrade without internet access this is a
</I>>>>><i> sensible option. But the upgrader should detect the situation itself,
</I>>>>><i> not hope that the user will read somewhere in the release notes that
</I>>>>><i> it's not supported.
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> No, just include Cauldron's backport repositories (disabled by default)
</I>>>><i> inside the DVD iso. Upgrade to the release version, if possible.
</I>>>><i> If that is not possible, upgrade to the version in backports.
</I>>>><i>
</I>>><i> Cauldron's backport repos will always be empty.
</I>>><i> If you introduce a new package, or a new version of an existing package
</I>>><i> to Cauldron, it is not, by definition, a backport. Even though the same
</I>>><i> version (not counting the revision) may be a backport for previous
</I>>><i> releases.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> By definition you are completely correct, but I was deliberatly
</I>><i> bending the definition to cover beta software. Or at least to
</I>><i> draw a distinction between an Extended Support Release package
</I>><i> and a standard package. A new name would make sense here.
</I>
They would have different names (if generally only the version included
in one).
Since a backport can only have one name, it would correspond to only one
of the packages. Presumably that with the same (or closest) version.
>><i> So if we do a release update to the latest release, backports will be
</I>>><i> replaced by regular packages except in those cases where a newer version
</I>>><i> has been introduced into Cauldron. And if we update to Cauldron, all
</I>>><i> backports will be replaced by regular packages -- according to our
</I>>><i> backport policy.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> [snip]
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Some packages annoyingly have two current versions. When that
</I>><i> happens it seems perfectly reasonable to just pick one, but if
</I>><i> anyone is ambitious enough to try two at once, this would be a
</I>><i> mechanism to handle it.
</I>
Don't see how backport repos are related.
To be installed simultaneously, they would have to install to different
locations, which is generally not the case. There is more than one
version of Postgresql available, for example, but they conflict and so
can't be installed at the same time.
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016568.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016567.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16428">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16428">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16428">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16428">[ 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>
|
