[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media

[AL13N]

Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 11:58:10 schreef Claire Robinson:
> > suppose that only blender and firefox and gimp and java is backported. any
> > kind of combination would have to be tested to be able to support
> > backports:
> > - testing backports blender on a system without backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only firefox
> > installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only gimp
> > installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only java
> > installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
> > and gimp installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
> > and java installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both gimp and
> > java installed from backports
> > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and firefox and
> > gimp and java installed from backports
> > 
> > This for each arch: thus 16 tests.
> > 
> > This amount of tests is a direct result of trying to support backports
> > when you can have any single backported package installed, that you want.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the kind of support we can offer for
> backports. See Thomas's email. We will test a package installs and
> works. We don't plan on supporting updates against already installed
> backports, at least none that I'm aware of and if so then we maybe ought
> to rethink opening backports altogether.

exactly, at this point, since noone thinks having supported backports is 
feasably, i think we should just have backports being unsupported, less QA 
that way too.

because i'd hate to have "supported backports", but breaking updates in the 
process...

> We obviously support updates against already installed updates. If that
> happens to break a backported package then that is not our main concern.
> We certainly have no plans to add an extra layer of testing to regular
> updates to check for that. I've never used a distro where backports were
> treated that way and we absolutely do not have the manpower in QA to
> support it. I'm not sure what other way to say it. I apologise if that
> narrows the options on backports policy but this is the reality of it.
> 
> That though is a separate discussion (or should be) and not related to
> fixing bug 2317.

indeed.