nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012, Samuel Verschelde wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't open backports for Mageia 1, and make sure upgrade to
Mageia 3 can take backports from Mageia 2 into account so that backports to
Mageia 2 are not stopped when Mageia 3 is released. Then we'll be safe.
I think we cannot have both :
- backports with higher version than in next stable release
- easy upgrade to next stable release
Why not ?
We would have to ensure that the version of the backport is less than or
equal to the version of the package (backport or not) in the next stable
release. We just have to follow the versioning policy of updates c.f.
Cauldron, i.e. an update always has a version less than cauldron. (Which
allows for adding updates without changing the version of the next
release.)
We are talking about backports, not updates, so we don't care about
versionning policy of updates.
OK. I was just suggesting that we use the same approach.
And backports can have higher version
than 'release' repository of next version, that's what this thread is
about.
Indeed.
I'm suggesting that in those cases where the version of the backport is
higher than the corresponding package of the next release, we ensure
that the backport will continue to function in the next version. As I
see it, this entails primarily that the dependancies will be available.
We can assume that the dependancies are satisfied where the backport is
initially installed. Given this, if these dependancies (or an update of
these dependancies) will function in next higher release, then I would
say that these conditions would be met, and the backport will continue
to function. Thus we can ensure, by establishing the appropriate
policies, that backports can continue to function with release updates.
Of course that will mean that in certain cases this won't be possible,
and I would suggest that in those few cases the backport be denied.
Cases such as a dependancy being obsoleted by a package that doesn't
provide all the functions needed by the backport. Not a very common
occurance.
We already have restrictions on backports, so I don't see this as a big
liability in exchange for reliable release updates.
It is possible that this problem could be solved by creating a backport
for the next stable release, in which case to do the backport for
release N-1 we would have to first create a backport for release N.
This assumes that during or after the update to the new release, one
does a regular update, and that the update will automatically present
backports which apply to already installed backports, even if the
backport repo is closed.
Obviously requiring a certain fine-tuning of the tools.
--
André
