blob: f6e6506d13aebae5a588afefd4900fd3941c6fc3 (
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
|
<!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=%3C4700324.FS1AIP2MHp%40localhost%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016745.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016756.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=%3C4700324.FS1AIP2MHp%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 17:59:32 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016745.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016756.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#16753">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16753">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16753">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16753">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 11:58:10 schreef Claire Robinson:
><i> > suppose that only blender and firefox and gimp and java is backported. any
</I>><i> > kind of combination would have to be tested to be able to support
</I>><i> > backports:
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system without backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only firefox
</I>><i> > installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only gimp
</I>><i> > installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only java
</I>><i> > installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
</I>><i> > and gimp installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
</I>><i> > and java installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both gimp and
</I>><i> > java installed from backports
</I>><i> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and firefox and
</I>><i> > gimp and java installed from backports
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > This for each arch: thus 16 tests.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > This amount of tests is a direct result of trying to support backports
</I>><i> > when you can have any single backported package installed, that you want.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I think you are misunderstanding the kind of support we can offer for
</I>><i> backports. See Thomas's email. We will test a package installs and
</I>><i> works. We don't plan on supporting updates against already installed
</I>><i> backports, at least none that I'm aware of and if so then we maybe ought
</I>><i> to rethink opening backports altogether.
</I>
exactly, at this point, since noone thinks having supported backports is
feasably, i think we should just have backports being unsupported, less QA
that way too.
because i'd hate to have "supported backports", but breaking updates in the
process...
><i> We obviously support updates against already installed updates. If that
</I>><i> happens to break a backported package then that is not our main concern.
</I>><i> We certainly have no plans to add an extra layer of testing to regular
</I>><i> updates to check for that. I've never used a distro where backports were
</I>><i> treated that way and we absolutely do not have the manpower in QA to
</I>><i> support it. I'm not sure what other way to say it. I apologise if that
</I>><i> narrows the options on backports policy but this is the reality of it.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> That though is a separate discussion (or should be) and not related to
</I>><i> fixing bug 2317.
</I>
indeed.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016745.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016756.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#16753">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16753">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16753">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16753">[ 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>
|
