Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 11:58:10 schreef Claire Robinson: > > suppose that only blender and firefox and gimp and java is backported. any > > kind of combination would have to be tested to be able to support > > backports: > > - testing backports blender on a system without backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only firefox > > installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only gimp > > installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only java > > installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox > > and gimp installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox > > and java installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both gimp and > > java installed from backports > > - testing backports blender on a system with backports and firefox and > > gimp and java installed from backports > > > > This for each arch: thus 16 tests. > > > > This amount of tests is a direct result of trying to support backports > > when you can have any single backported package installed, that you want. > > I think you are misunderstanding the kind of support we can offer for > backports. See Thomas's email. We will test a package installs and > works. We don't plan on supporting updates against already installed > backports, at least none that I'm aware of and if so then we maybe ought > to rethink opening backports altogether.
exactly, at this point, since noone thinks having supported backports is feasably, i think we should just have backports being unsupported, less QA that way too. because i'd hate to have "supported backports", but breaking updates in the process... > We obviously support updates against already installed updates. If that > happens to break a backported package then that is not our main concern. > We certainly have no plans to add an extra layer of testing to regular > updates to check for that. I've never used a distro where backports were > treated that way and we absolutely do not have the manpower in QA to > support it. I'm not sure what other way to say it. I apologise if that > narrows the options on backports policy but this is the reality of it. > > That though is a separate discussion (or should be) and not related to > fixing bug 2317. indeed.
