[Mageia-dev] [changelog] [RPM] cauldron core/release dsniff-2.4-0.b1.1.mga2

[Anssi Hannula]

On 04.01.2012 19:29, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 16:16 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
>> On 04.01.2012 11:54, Michael Scherer wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 04 janvier 2012 à 11:03 +0200, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
>>>> Anssi Hannula skrev 3.1.2012 23:05:
>>>>> On 02.01.2012 12:21, guillomovitch wrote:
>>>>>> Name        : dsniff                       Relocations: (not relocatable)
>>>>>> Version     : 2.4                               Vendor: Mageia.Org
>>>>>> Release     : 0.b1.1.mga2                   Build Date: Mon Jan  2 11:18:17 2012
>>>>>> Install Date: (not installed)               Build Host: ecosse
>>>>>> Group       : Monitoring                    Source RPM: (none)
>>>>>> Size        : 210074                           License: BSD
>>>>>> Signature   : (none)
>>>>>> Packager    : guillomovitch<guillomovitch>
>>>>>> URL         : http://www.monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/
>>>>>> Summary     : Network audit tools
>>>>>> Description :
>>>>>> Tools to audit network and to demonstrate the insecurity of cleartext
>>>>>> network protocols. Please do not abuse this software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> guillomovitch<guillomovitch>  2.4-0.b1.1.mga2:
>>>>>> + Revision: 189630
>>>>>> - drop epoch, we don't care about updating from mdv anymore
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes we do. Atleast from 2010.1
>>>
>>> We did for 1, not for 2 or cauldron or anything else. So as long the
>>> package is not pushed on 1, I think we agreed that people could not care
>>> about upgrade path from Mandriva.
>>
>> Well, I don't like that, IMO we should not remove upgradeability so
>> soon, even if we won't officially support it.
> 
> Well, if we do not officially support it, then we do not support it,
> that's all. There is no "that's unofficially supported" or stuff like
> that. Supported mean "we will do test and fix bug if they happen", and
> not supported mean "we reserve our right to not do anything".
> 
> And that's exactly what happen right now.

IMO there is a level between "officially supported" and "we
intentionally break it", which means that we advise against it but do
not hinder people from doing it.

Also, I personally do fix any upgradeability bugs for the last several
releases if such are reported to me (though you are right that I do not
specifically test them, hence "unsupported".

>> But anyway, this affects people doing 2010.1->mga1->mga2 as well... Or
>> are you saying that isn't supported either, and people should do new
>> installs??
> 
> We do not support upgrading mdv2010.1 rpms with rpm from mga2, so if a
> maintainer want to remove this, he can.
> 
> Someone doing mdv2010.1->mga1 will end with a mix of mdv2010.1 and mga1
> if the system is not cleaned, and that's not something we should
> support, not more than mga X + any random repository upgrade to mga X+1 
> 
> IE, that's not mga1 -> mga2, that's mga1 + 3rd party repo that happened
> to work by chance to mga2. 

I have to strongly disagree with this. If upgrading from 2010.1 to mga1
is officially supported (and it is), we can't say "you can't upgrade
your mga1 system to mga2 anymore because you have some old pkgs
installed which we never asked you to remove" (assuming no non-mdv 3rd
party repos here).

Upgrading the distribution via path N -> N+1 -> N+2 -> N+3 -> N+4
(without extra repositories) should *always* be supported, and I see no
reason to break that for the mdv->mga transition point either.

-- 
Anssi Hannula