[Mageia-dev] backports

[Wolfgang Bornath]

2011/7/26 Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org>:
> Le lundi 25 juillet 2011 à 21:47 +0200, Maarten Vanraes a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> with regards to backports, users are complaining (they always do) that
>> backports are taking too long.
>>
>> on the one hand almost everyone seems to agree that backports should be
>> "supported" in some way or another... however, noone seems to want to
>> actuallty put in the time to finalize that. (or at least that's how I see it)
>>
>> Since afair there is no real consensus, i suggest one of the following
>> options, or possibly make this a vote, or have packaging team leaders (or
>> board) decide this:
>>
>> A. backports are maintainers responsibility
>>
>> Every backport is tested or untested by maintainers discretion, (s)he decides
>> how much testing it needs. We could still make a policy that there should be
>> some tests.
>>
>> B. well established support like updates
>>
>> Similar QA like updates.
>>
>>
>> then there is the matter of submission:
>>
>> A. We submit all backports from cauldron
>>
>> B. like updates, there's a separate section for backports
>>
>> C. backport submission is only allowed from the separate section, not from
>> cauldron, if you want to backports from cauldron, you need to make the
>> necessary steps yourself.
>>
>>
>> personally, i favor B & C; such as i think most of the people wanted; but if
>> wanted, i can settle for A & B.
>
> If people did read what others said, they would have seen the obvious
> problem :
> Most people using backports, if not all, want to update just partially
> their system ( ie, cherry picking ). See for example the mail of wobo
> http://www.mail-archive.com/mageia-dev@mageia.org/msg05794.html
>
> We also do it on our infrastructure, and I know others admins that do it
> too. See also others mails about the topic.
>
> So you are completely missing the real problems.
>
> Yet, the solution is simple :
> just say that backports are unsupported beyond "we offer them on the
> mirrors", since nobody is willing to :
>
> 1) properly define supported ( yet everybody agree that it should be ).
> To me supported mean :
> - do not break important stuff of the distribution
> - is supported in term of bugfixes by the distribution, in a timely
> fashion
> - supported by packagers
>
> 2) take the required measure to make that happen
> and by "taking the measure", I mean "follow the limitations that would
> enable proper support by my definition", which include among others :
> - not break upgrade from the distro to a new version ( I already
> explained that in the previous thread )
> - not let users with outdated and vulnerable softwares without expecting
> them to spend time finely tuning their system, and without putting
> restriction on what they run ( such as forcing to run a specific applet
> instead of having a smooth and integrated system like update )
>
> Current system of Mandriva, that is currently used, is geared toward
> technical users only, and even them are left with a system in a
> unsupported state ( ie, no update, no upgrade, and no assurance of
> backport being properly tested ).
>
> We only solved the 3rd part for now, and I did proposal for the 2nd one
> ( that were refused ).
>
>> If someone from -sysadmin can find the time to make the SVN repos for backports
>> (and testing), that would be awesome, so we can actually do some testing for
>> it and get this show on the road.
>
> I do not think we should deploy first and then think.
>
> Either we declare backport unsupported, as in the current form, saying
> otherwise would be lying, or we need clearly define what to expect ( and
> that would be mostly "no support if you do this, and less support if you
> do that" ) if people think unsupported is too strong. If we take this
> way, we should make it clear to people using it.
>
> Or we find a solution for the problems, without adding new ones.
>
> We worked too hard to have a good reputation of being a solid
> distribution to ruin it. People can better cope with running old working
> softwares ( with old being 3 or 4 months old ) than having crashes or
> breakage later.
>
> Especially since people have said "we do not want to reinstall on every
> version", to me, that's clearly a demand from users to have a working
> and smooth distribution upgrade process.

A very strong +1 for these 2 last paragraphs.

-- 
wobo