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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20Summary&In-Reply-To=%3C4FEB5083.5070202%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016940.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016943.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Backports%20Summary&In-Reply-To=%3C4FEB5083.5070202%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Jun 27 20:27:15 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016940.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016943.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16941">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16941">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16941">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16941">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>nicolas vigier a écrit :
><i> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> nicolas vigier a écrit :
</I>>><i>
</I>>>><i> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> nicolas vigier a écrit :
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>>><i> I would favour tagging backports as update repos, so that in the event
</I>>>>>>>>><i> of a newer backport for security or bug fixes, that it will be
</I>>>>>>>>><i> automatically presented with other updates.
</I>>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i> No.
</I>>>>>>>><i> as the update applet currently works it would show the backport as
</I>>>>>>>><i> an update even if you dont have an earlier backport installed,
</I>>>>>>>><i> defeating the purpose of having separate /updates vs /backports
</I>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i> This is conditional on first modifying the update tools, as suggested next.
</I>>>>>>><i> A backport should only update an already installed backport.
</I>>>>>>><i> (Similarly for nonfree and tainted, if that is not already the case.)
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i> We should not change the behaviour of medias tagged as update repo. If
</I>>>>>><i> we want a different behaviour for backports then we should tag those
</I>>>>>><i> medias as backport, not update.
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i> The idea is, once the tools are appropriately adjusted, to tag the backport
</I>>>>><i> repos as update media, as in rpmdrake. But alternately we could get the
</I>>>>><i> update tools to automatically treat backport repos as update media for
</I>>>>><i> backports.
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>>><i>
</I>>>><i> backports are not updates, why should we tag them as update ?
</I>>>><i>
</I>>>><i>
</I>>><i> If you are talking about the packages themselves, of course _backports
</I>>><i> packages_ should be tagged as backports, and regular update packages as
</I>>><i> updates.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> packages themselves are not tagged as backports or updates.
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> However talking about _backport repos_, exactly how we tag them is
</I>>><i> arbitrary.
</I>>><i> Although obviously backports are updates relative to the initial release in
</I>>><i> question, so it is not unreasonable to tag the backport repos as updates.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> backports and updates repos need to be handled differently by
</I>><i> urpmi/rpmdrake. So they should be tagged differently. Is it so hard to
</I>><i> understand ?
</I>><i>
</I>
Backport packages and update packages need to be handled differently.
This can be more reliably dealt with by tagging the backport packages
themselves.
As a user could copy the backport to any location, it won't necessarily
be installed from a backport repo.
Which I and others have already suggested numerous times in previous
threads.
By tagging the package in the name (someone suggested using "bp"), it
could be readily determined by any user that a package is a backport.
My suggestion of tagging the backport repos as updates was recognizing
an obvious fact, which apparently is used by installer tools.
(Otherwise why bother ?)
And indeed, backports will be used as updates, albeit only to already
installed backports.
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016940.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016943.html">[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16941">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16941">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16941">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16941">[ 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>
|
