[Mageia-dev] Opening backports (was Re: [Mageia-sysadm] Using SQL database for youri)

[blind Pete]

on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:14
in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
Samuel Verschelde wrote:

> Le samedi 1 octobre 2011 00:57:35, blind Pete a écrit :
>> on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:05
>> in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel
>> 
>> Maarten Vanraes wrote:
>> > Op vrijdag 30 september 2011 23:35:40 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
>> >> Le jeudi 29 septembre 2011 21:10:42, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> > Also, the sooner we have backports, the less there will be external
>> >> > third- party repos with all the problems (upgrade, support) that
>> >> > causes. There already are, don't let them too much space and rather
>> >> > invite their packagers to backport *inside* (as long as they stay
>> >> > within the policy of course).
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> If needed, the tremendous amount of packages in Blogdrake's 3rd party
>> >> media shows how much backports are needed by users, whatever we as
>> >> packagers can think of it.
>> >> 
>> >> I'm still convinced that opening backports right now, using one of my 2
>> >> proposals (if I haven't overlooked a technical difficulty), would be an
>> >> important step forward for us.
>> >> 
>> >> Best regards
>> >> 
>> >> Samuel
>> > 
>> > I have to agree, if opening backports brings in more packagers who are
>> > likely to integrate well AND bring in more users AND likely would step
>> > up and maintain similar packages, we should help their effort and not
>> > get our community too splintered, even though updates _is_ more
>> > important than backports.
>> 
>> Potentially silly idea:
>> 
>> Would it be worth having backports-supported and backports-unsupported,
>> or backports and backports-untested, or backports and backports-3rd-party?
>> 
>> You could occasionally move things in either direction between
>> supported and unsupported.
> 
> You already have them: backports and backports_testing. backports is 
> supported, backports_testing isn't (equivalent to your backports-untested). 
> However, packages sent to backports_testing must respect the backports policy, 
> which is a difference with 3rd party media where we don't know what policy is 
> applied.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Samuel Verschelde

That makes sense.  

I imagine that it would be fairly easy to get stuff into 
Tainted Backports Testing.