On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 07:49:29PM -0400, Frank Griffin wrote:
I'd like to propose the following model for updating released versions:
1) Users should not have to see, except in minor ways, the different
repositories. Urpmi may see them, and advanced or ideologically polar
users may care about them (e.g. free vs non-free), but most users
I object to this specific point, if what we are doing is free software
that should be made clear to users. and i believe the user shold be
asked wether they want to use only free software or not.
2) The update tool we give these users should distinguish between
security updates and backports/testing, but present them both. This is
updates are not necessarily limited to security, but ok
backports is one thing, testing is a completely different one
the only use for testing is pulling out a specific (set of) packages for
QA purpose, no user should ever see those.
but the idea of separating the two in the user interface is sound.
(Here's the biggie :-) )
4) We need to enhance the urpmi.recover functionality and bring it fully
into mainstream urpmi so that ANY PACKAGE CAN BE ROLLED BACK TO ITS
PREVIOUS VERSION (sorry for the caps). If we don't want to be stuck
I just read it 3 times, and i still believe doing the above might prove to be a
nightmare.
rolling back a single, well identified change is a doable task.
rolling back proceduraly a complex change becomes exponentially complex
even for experienced system engineers, let alone a piece of software.
i'll spend more time on doing qa on packages pushed to released distros.
L.
--
Luca Berra -- [email protected]
