Le 2010-10-08 13:49, Frank Griffin a écrit :
Marc Paré wrote:
As it seems we keep going in circles on this Romain has arranged the
following so that the threads on this topic become more focussed:
I'd read the thread previously, and checked the wiki page, but this is a
different issue. That wiki page is pretty much just a poll (who are
you, what do you do with your systems, what kind of release schedule do
you want). This proposal is independent of whether there's a rolling
release or not; it's about presenting the update process to the user in
a different way.
Yup, I reread your proposal. You are right. It would be nice for you to
add it to the wiki page. This is after all, as you said, one of the
issues raised in the thread.
--------------------
As to your proposal, the issue with "Backports" and lack of
understanding form the users point of view is quite a large one. There
should be a VERY descriptive info section explaining the purpose of
"Backports". The lack of a descriptive expanation just did not make the
"Backports" section of the MCC popular by users. We just assumed that
when a newer version of our favourite soft. had come out, that all we
had to do is wait for it to come up in the "you know, that red ball
thingy in the tasbar on the right-bottom".
I am now making use of Backports and loving it! But also realize the
dangers of using it.
--------------------
So, as to your proposal, I am in agreement with it. Maybe a suggestion
(more of a question), seeing as the issues have to deal more with the
dependencies of a "roll-back", what if, "Backports" would install,
somehow the software updates in a self compartment kind of way (sorry my
language terms may not be descriptive enough).
Users know that repositories are activated and some are not at the time
of install. I think that most users have a faint idea of this. But if
Backports were to be used more at the user level, what is clear, is
that, there should be a roll-back feature. If the roll-back feature, as
a normal course of rolling-back will or could remove other softs due to
dependencies, then maybe possible option would be to have the "Backport"
software installations install all dependencies in such a way as to
isolate them from the larger distro packages. This would in effect could
make a secondary related-dependency file on the system. Then if a
roll-back were done a Backported software package only the associated
dependencies would be deleted.
Could this be done?
Sorry, I am not sure if this is written clearly enough.
Marc
