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
|
<!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%09like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C1432070.Slx7WnIyHW%40localhost%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016749.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016738.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%09like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C1432070.Slx7WnIyHW%40localhost%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media">alien at rmail.be
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Jun 22 17:57:12 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016749.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016738.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#16752">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16752">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16752">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16752">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 15:00:14 schreef Sander Lepik:
><i> 22.06.2012 13:20, AL13N kirjutas:
</I>><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
</I>><i> >> 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>><i> >
</I>><i> > Breaking updates because we try to support backports is not something that
</I>><i> > i wish to have, no matter how rare the case.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Sorry to disappoint you, but this is something you can't avoid. And for that
</I>><i> reason backports are not enabled by default ;)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > And your solution wouldn't work, except for backporting the update and
</I>><i> > having the user manually try to use the backported version for that too...
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Yes, you are finally starting to get my point. User has to manually fix
</I>><i> those problems with backports and there is nothing we can do about it (at
</I>><i> least it won't be easy).
</I>
considering both these points, we can't call backports supported IMHO.
i'd rather have unsupported backports then, as we had before in mdv. calling
it supported and not being able to fix these 2 points is just ridiculous.
I've tried to find a solution where backports are feasable, but it seems noone
wishes to use it or consider it like that (where you're using all backports),
so let's just cut the case and have unsupported backports. it's less work on
QA.
but this is all regarding backports, and not for bug 2317.
considering that backports is unsupported, my patch for 2317 is still valid,
because you shouldn't have backports selected when updating, because it's not
supported.
I still think my patch is better, but if someone can make the patch using the
corresponding release media, i'll not object anymore...
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016749.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016738.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#16752">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16752">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16752">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16752">[ 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>
|
