on Sat, 1 Oct 2011 09:14 in the Usenet newsgroup gmane.linux.mageia.devel Samuel Verschelde wrote:
> 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 That makes sense. I imagine that it would be fairly easy to get stuff into Tainted Backports Testing.
