Le samedi 1 octobre 2011 00:57:35, blind Pete a écrit : > on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:05 > in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel > > Maarten Vanraes wrote: > > Op vrijdag 30 september 2011 23:35:40 schreef Samuel Verschelde: > >> Le jeudi 29 septembre 2011 21:10:42, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : > [snip] > > >> > Also, the sooner we have backports, the less there will be external > >> > third- party repos with all the problems (upgrade, support) that > >> > causes. There already are, don't let them too much space and rather > >> > invite their packagers to backport *inside* (as long as they stay > >> > within the policy of course). > > [snip] > > >> If needed, the tremendous amount of packages in Blogdrake's 3rd party > >> media shows how much backports are needed by users, whatever we as > >> packagers can think of it. > >> > >> I'm still convinced that opening backports right now, using one of my 2 > >> proposals (if I haven't overlooked a technical difficulty), would be an > >> important step forward for us. > >> > >> Best regards > >> > >> Samuel > > > > I have to agree, if opening backports brings in more packagers who are > > likely to integrate well AND bring in more users AND likely would step > > up and maintain similar packages, we should help their effort and not > > get our community too splintered, even though updates _is_ more > > important than backports. > > Potentially silly idea: > > Would it be worth having backports-supported and backports-unsupported, > or backports and backports-untested, or backports and backports-3rd-party? > > You could occasionally move things in either direction between > supported and unsupported.
You already have them: backports and backports_testing. backports is supported, backports_testing isn't (equivalent to your backports-untested). However, packages sent to backports_testing must respect the backports policy, which is a difference with 3rd party media where we don't know what policy is applied. Best regards Samuel Verschelde
