[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary
andre999
andre999mga at laposte.net
Wed Jun 27 19:46:22 CEST 2012
nicolas vigier a écrit :
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
>
>
>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thomas Backlund a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> andre999 skrev 27.6.2012 14:40:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas Backlund a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> andre999 skrev 27.6.2012 10:47:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would favour adding the requirement that the dependancies of the
>>>>>>>> backport must be available in the next release. So that we would
>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is esentially stating that we cant backport any bigger version to
>>>>>>> mga2 /backports than mga3 will havein /release wich means when we hit
>>>>>>> version freeze for mga3, it also freezes mga2 /backports...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not following this point.
>>>>>> What I mean is that if backport xx for mga1 requires yy version 12 in
>>>>>> mga1, but yy is version 13 in mga2, we would define the requires for yy
>>>>>> to accept versions 12 to 13 (or maybe wider).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Point is what if you backport version 14 to mga1, and mga2 has version 13,
>>>>> then upgrade path breaks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No problem. If the requirements of version 14 are present in mga2, then
>>>> the backport will (very likely) continue to work normally. If the versions
>>>> of the required packages change, they will be updated with the upgrade.
>>>> Since version 13 of mga2 is less than the version 14 of the backport, it
>>>> won't be installed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There is no guaranty that requirements of version 14 mga1 backports are
>>> all available in mageia 2. If it is linked with libsomething.so.1, but
>>> mageia 2 only has libsomething.so.2, then there is a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That was my point.
>> I was suggesting that it be required that backport requires be compatible
>> with newer releases.
>>
> And how do you check that it is compatible, without testing ? And how do
> you test that it will be compatible with a newer release that is not yet
> released ?
>
You split in the middle of the point. (The above sentence could have
been better worded.)
See below.
> Maybe we can also require that backports are bugfree, so we don't have
> to manage backport updates.
>
That would be nice, if you can see how to do it :D
>
>> In your example, cauldron would probably require the libsomething.so.2, so
>> if the backport requires could be adjusted to work with libsomething.so.1,
>> we would keep the requires compatible with libsomething.so.2. If that
>> isn't possible, then it wouldn't be accepted.
>>
> We cannot link a program with both libsomething.so.1 and
> libsomething.so.2.
>
If the spec file requires cannot be adjusted to accept linking with
whichever of the 2 is available, then in that case the backport wouldn't
be accepted - if my suggested restriction is accepted.
>> I'm no expert of course, but it seems to me that it would be generally
>> possible as long as there weren't important code changes made to make the
>> backport work.
>> So it would largely be a question of appropriately adjusting the specified
>> requires.
>>
> A lot of requires are generated automatically, we cannot change them
> (and changing them would probably be wrong). And a lot of requires are
> not versionned, but implicitly require the version available in the
> same mageia release, without any guaranty that it works with a different
> version.
>
You mean generated automatically in the spec file ? Surprising.
If the require isn't versioned, since it would work in cauldron, and
also works in the backport release, then I would expect that it would
work in interim releases. If it doesn't, that is in the risk of a backport.
Don't forget, my suggestion is to increase the _probability_ that a
backport will work in interim releases. Not to garantee that it will.
In my experience, it is essentially the unavailability of required
packages that makes a package from an older release stop working. A
backport would fit in this mold, except it will be a variation of what
is already working in cauldron.
Collectively we may think it is not worth the increased reliability of
backports, but I think that for little effort we see an important gain.
--
André
More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list