On Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:22:23 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:43:35 -0500 > Juan Luis Baptiste <juan...@mageia.org> > > wrote: > > > Sure, you cannot be save of regressions, but what makes you think you > > > are smarter than upstream? What makes you so sure that not the one > > > commit you add as a patch to your package is the one that causes the > > > regressions? > > > > Because as I said earlier, we backport the "commit" that fixes that > > single issue, based on the info found on the bugzilla report of the > > upstream project. > > But how do you choose which patches you want to backport from the > stream of bugfixes done by upstream?
Speaking for myself, and using openldap as an example: 1)I am active on the mailing lists (e.g. openldap-technical) 2)I am subscribed to the bugs mailing list (openldap-its) 3)I check commits in git for the OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_4 branch Typically, if I see 'crasher' in the commimt, I'll look at using that patch for an update. > Should the packager monitor all > bug fixing activity? (sure (s)he *can*, but that's a lot of work) > > Just because someone doesn't file a bug against Mageia doesn't mean the > bug doesn't bother anybody, because many users don't report upstream > bugs to the distro's tracker. > (also, other users don't bother reporting bugs at all :-)) And this is the reason I would like to see backports, so I can: 1)Provide bugfix and security updates with no regressions, in updates 2)Provide latest upstream stable release in backports, so a user can conveniently contribute (e.g. bug reports) upstream. But, note that pushing unwanted packages to 99% of our users is not a solution either, we don't want to be Fedora, where every month you effectively have a new distribution ... Regards, Buchan