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
|
<!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=%3C4FD7D536.2050201%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016449.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016454.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=%3C4FD7D536.2050201%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Jun 13 01:48:06 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016449.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016454.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16450">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16450">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16450">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16450">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>nicolas vigier a écrit :
><i> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> nicolas vigier a écrit :
</I>>><i>
</I>>>><i> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</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 to
</I>>>>><i> Mageia 2 are not stopped when Mageia 3 is released. Then we'll be safe.
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> I think we cannot have both :
</I>>>><i> - backports with higher version than in next stable release
</I>>>><i> - easy upgrade to next stable release
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>><i> Why not ?
</I>>><i> We would have to ensure that the version of the backport is less than or
</I>>><i> equal to the version of the package (backport or not) in the next stable
</I>>><i> release. We just have to follow the versioning policy of updates c.f.
</I>>><i> Cauldron, i.e. an update always has a version less than cauldron. (Which
</I>>><i> allows for adding updates without changing the version of the next
</I>>><i> release.)
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> We are talking about backports, not updates, so we don't care about
</I>><i> versionning policy of updates.
</I>
OK. I was just suggesting that we use the same approach.
><i> And backports can have higher version
</I>><i> than 'release' repository of next version, that's what this thread is
</I>><i> about.
</I>><i>
</I>
Indeed.
I'm suggesting that in those cases where the version of the backport is
higher than the corresponding package of the next release, we ensure
that the backport will continue to function in the next version. As I
see it, this entails primarily that the dependancies will be available.
We can assume that the dependancies are satisfied where the backport is
initially installed. Given this, if these dependancies (or an update of
these dependancies) will function in next higher release, then I would
say that these conditions would be met, and the backport will continue
to function. Thus we can ensure, by establishing the appropriate
policies, that backports can continue to function with release updates.
Of course that will mean that in certain cases this won't be possible,
and I would suggest that in those few cases the backport be denied.
Cases such as a dependancy being obsoleted by a package that doesn't
provide all the functions needed by the backport. Not a very common
occurance.
We already have restrictions on backports, so I don't see this as a big
liability in exchange for reliable release updates.
It is possible that this problem could be solved by creating a backport
for the next stable release, in which case to do the backport for
release N-1 we would have to first create a backport for release N.
This assumes that during or after the update to the new release, one
does a regular update, and that the update will automatically present
backports which apply to already installed backports, even if the
backport repo is closed.
Obviously requiring a certain fine-tuning of the tools.
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016449.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016454.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports policy clarification (and discussion)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16450">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16450">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16450">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16450">[ 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>
|
