[Mageia-dev] Backports Summary

[andre999]

nicolas vigier a écrit :
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
>
>    
>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
>>      
>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> nicolas vigier a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> I would favour tagging backports as update repos, so that in the event
>>>>>>>> of a newer backport for security or bug fixes, that it will be
>>>>>>>> automatically presented with other updates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> as the update applet currently works it would show the backport as
>>>>>>> an update even if you dont have an earlier backport installed,
>>>>>>> defeating the purpose of having separate /updates vs /backports
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> This is conditional on first modifying the update tools, as suggested next.
>>>>>> A backport should only update an already installed backport.
>>>>>> (Similarly for nonfree and tainted, if that is not already the case.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> We should not change the behaviour of medias tagged as update repo. If
>>>>> we want a different behaviour for backports then we should tag those
>>>>> medias as backport, not update.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> The idea is, once the tools are appropriately adjusted, to tag the backport
>>>> repos as update media, as in rpmdrake.  But alternately we could get the
>>>> update tools to automatically treat backport repos as update media for
>>>> backports.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> backports are not updates, why should we tag them as update ?
>>>
>>>        
>> If you are talking about the packages themselves, of course _backports
>> packages_ should be tagged as backports, and regular update packages as
>> updates.
>>      
> packages themselves are not tagged as backports or updates.
>
>    
>> However talking about _backport repos_, exactly how we tag them is
>> arbitrary.
>> Although obviously backports are updates relative to the initial release in
>> question, so it is not unreasonable to tag the backport repos as updates.
>>      
> backports and updates repos need to be handled differently by
> urpmi/rpmdrake. So they should be tagged differently. Is it so hard to
> understand ?
>    

Backport packages and update packages need to be handled differently.
This can be more reliably dealt with by tagging the backport packages 
themselves.
As a user could copy the backport to any location, it won't necessarily 
be installed from a backport repo.
Which I and others have already suggested numerous times in previous 
threads.
By tagging the package in the name (someone suggested using "bp"), it 
could be readily determined by any user that a package is a backport.
My suggestion of tagging the backport repos as updates was recognizing 
an obvious fact, which apparently is used by installer tools.  
(Otherwise why bother ?)
And indeed, backports will be used as updates, albeit only to already 
installed backports.

-- 
André