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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3Cb51d2e0bf1171290f880bb6ea8cd5dbc.squirrel%40mail.rmail.be%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016728.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016749.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media</H1>
<B>AL13N</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3Cb51d2e0bf1171290f880bb6ea8cd5dbc.squirrel%40mail.rmail.be%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media">alien at rmail.be
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Jun 22 12:20:41 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016728.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016749.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16739">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16739">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16739">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16739">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>><i> 22.06.2012 00:01, AL13N kirjutas:
</I>[...]
>><i> however, as long as backports is installed, it could still be that due
</I>>><i> to an
</I>>><i> update a new dependency from release is pulled, which could conflict (or
</I>>><i> not
</I>>><i> work correctly) with some of the installed backports.
</I>
><i> Like has been said for many times now, you should not backport such
</I>><i> packages.
</I>
but that's my point, you can't guarantee it, because it's a new dependency
from an update. _any_ package can be the new dependency. even one that was
backported before.
><i> And about the conflicting part - well, at that point you are already on
</I>><i> your own, at least
</I>><i> as i see it. Backports can break updating/upgrading, we can't avoid that
</I>><i> (and for the same
</I>><i> reason backports should be cherry-picked, so you get as little trouble as
</I>><i> possible). The
</I>><i> best you can do at that point is to submit a bug about broken update and
</I>><i> maybe (just maybe)
</I>><i> we can submit the updated package that needs those new deps into backports
</I>><i> too - so you can
</I>><i> pull it from there and get over the update problem. But this should be a
</I>><i> rare case anyway.
</I>
Breaking updates because we try to support backports is not something that
i wish to have, no matter how rare the case.
And your solution wouldn't work, except for backporting the update and
having the user manually try to use the backported version for that too...
>><i> D. not supporting backports
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> for update validation of package X (let's call it update A2):
</I>>><i> 1. testing combination: A,C,E for arch i586
</I>>><i> 2. testing combination: A,C,E for arch x86_64
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> for backport validation of package X (let's call it backport B2):
</I>>><i> No testing
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> Validations required: 2 for each update
</I>>><i> => this is how it is now
</I>><i> And for updates it should stay like that.
</I>
both B2, C and D have the same amount of tests for updates.
i thought i had made this clear, but it seems i failed in this.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016728.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016749.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16739">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16739">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16739">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16739">[ 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>
|
