[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary

[AL13N]

Op dinsdag 26 juni 2012 22:25:10 schreef Thomas Backlund:
> So,
> we have been discussing this many times, and not gotten any
> satisfactory decision to go ahead yet...
[...]
> Now a point that got raised during discussion of bug 2317:
> * if a backport break because of something ending up in /updates
>    it's a bug to be reported against the backport (and not against
>    the released update) as packages ending up in /updates are only
>    validated against /release and /updates (and rightfully so as
>    thats how they are built too)

* in the rare event that an update breaks because of something ending up in 
/backports before the update was done, the users who had installed that 
backport, will either need to install the new dependency that's in /release, 
by replacing it with it's backported version manually. or will have to remove 
the backport manually to allow the update to be installed.

I'm just giving this for reference, it should be added to the policy imho.

[...]
> And since we can continue this what/if discussion forever,
> and thereby delay backports even more here is my take on it:
> 
> my suggestions to decide on question 1 and 2:
> 1. backporting bigger version to mga1 than mga2 has is
>     allowed as it will otherwise restrict backporting
>     too much. (and since its leaf packages, it should
>     not break (too much)). Lets just make it clear to
>     everyone using backports.
> 
> 2. we cant really require that as the one backporting
>     the package to mga1 has to backport it to mga2 too
>     as he/she might not be using mga2 at all. if someone
>     wants/needs the backport for mga2, they need to
>     request that. (in reality, going by how backports
>     got handled in mdv most backports will end up in
>     all supported releases anyway)

I agree either way here. your suggestion is fine for me, another solution is 
also fine

> If we can agree on this as a start, we can open backports
> soon so we get actual facts of how backports policy and
> process works.
> 
> Then we rewiew backports policy and process in ~6 months,
> and adjust it if needed.

I agree with you fully, except for the addendum and bug 2317. iinm QA 
requested that bug 2317 would be fixed before backports opens, because it'll 
make their job harder.

the patch i proposed was not good enough, so someone with more in-depth 
knowledge of perl-urpm than myself needs to take a look at things.