blob: d279b87eb6729ec656b9c1ccd4b262de252d4158 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
|
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/14 Wolfgang Bornath <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:molch.b@googlemail.com">molch.b@googlemail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
2011/6/14 Anne nicolas <<a href="mailto:ennael@mageia.org">ennael@mageia.org</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> I guess because of Mandriva policy. We did provide backports but it was<br>
> explicitely said to be unsupported. "Use it at your own risks"<br>
> We may have to rewrite this and make things clear<br>
<br>
</div>Do you mean, just telling people that it is no risk or do you mean a<br>
change which lessens the risk?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>not at all</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
As Michael wrote earlier in this thread, if there was the risk to<br>
break the system by low quality of backports then the quality has to<br>
be improved (not his own words but that's how I understood it).<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div>exactly what I had in mind. Having backports can allow choice between "the last version of" and "the stable version with which I'm happy</div><div> with". But indeed we need more quality in backport rpms that is policy and tests.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font color="#888888">
--<br>
wobo<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Anne<br><a href="http://www.mageia.org" target="_blank">http://www.mageia.org</a><br>
|
