Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 09:25 +0200, Angelo Naselli a écrit : > domenica 26 giugno 2011 alle 13:38, Michael Scherer ha scritto: > > See the thread about policy, and the part about "only packages that > > nothing requires should be backported". > I can't see very well the leaf story... I mean any packages > require something at least to build. Scripts need interpreters, so > i'd expect interpreters cannot be backported, but we can find a > script based package (using perl, ruby or python...) needing some other > script based one, the same could happen for programs. Now what can > we backport there? > A and B are leaves (?) but B uses A so i can revert A for a problem, > now are we sure A on stable works with B on backports?
if B use A, that mean that A is not a leave package, since something requires it. > Morever we could not backport new major libraries, they would not conflicts > with stable though, but sure they could affect some packages built in > backports > after that should not work without new major..... Yes. There is a moment where we need to answer "do we want to backport all cauldron on stable", which is basically what we incrementally do with cauldron", or do we just backport a subset of application where we can do enough QA because changes are small enough ? > I'm confused :/ > > IMO we should improve the QA (or what else) and testing to allow a safe > installation and proving that will be upgraded to the next mageia release, > then if we call it backports, upgrades, updates or... that's > another and maybe less important thing. Proving is easy. The package in release must have a higher EVR than those on backports. But if we let people do cherry picking, this is much harder. -- Michael Scherer
