zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20101007/138c9beb/attachment.html


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/10/6 Olivier Thauvin <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:nanardon@nanardon.zarb.org">nanardon@nanardon.zarb.org</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">* Buchan Milne (<a href="mailto:bgmilne@multilinks.com">bgmilne@multilinks.com</a>) wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">&gt; On Tuesday, 5 October 2010 23:39:09 Tux99 wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, nicolas vigier wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
</div><div class="im">&gt; &gt; 3) I mentioned earlier that the packager would need to use good<br>
&gt; &gt; judgement and not include major incompatible version changes<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; You are aware that this is significantly more work than &#39;mdvsys submit -t<br>
&gt; 2010.1 --define section=main/backports $package&#39; (after some minimal testing of<br>
&gt; course)?<br>
<br>
</div>This part of the discuss let me think something.<br>
<br>
We have both some people wanting huge set of backport and other wanting<br>
long life release w/o change except security/bug fix.<br>
<br>
So, why not alternate both, 1 release with backports denied but long<br>
life, and the 2nd with backports and update but during a shorter period.<br>
(X.0 would be the new distro with backports, X.1 the one more servers<br>
oriented or enterprise).<br>
<br>
What do you think ?<br>
<font color="#888888"></font><br></blockquote><div><font color="#888888"><br>i am not pro this, i think this is better to have the same policy for all the releases.</font> </div></div>