Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 18:14:50 schreef David W. Hodgins: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:11:58 -0400, AL13N <[email protected]> wrote: > > ok, i guess when people said, supported, i immediately assumed full > > support. that kind of misled me. > > My understanding, is that backports will have minimal testing. > > We ensure the backport will install, on a system that currently > only has release + updates, and that the basic functions of the > package work, where it's possible for us to test. > > We cannot possibly test every possible combination of selected > backports, and will not attempt to. > > What I don't want to see, which I did with Mandriva backports, > is cases where unsigned rpm packages were in the repositories, > or installation required the use of --allow-nodeps or --allow-force, > due to file conflicts with release or updates packages. Those > problems were rare, but often enough, that I wouldn't let the end > users I support install backports themselves.
well, imho even with this testing it's still possible, allthough likely rarer that the user would have to use these or any other manual procedures. even with updates. (unsigned rpms should be caught by the build process, even though it still sometimes fails for reasons unbeknownst) in any case, i don't think of this as supported and won't suggest backports to any user who doesn't have the necessary skills to fix it himself.
