nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, andre999 wrote:
I would favour tagging backports as update repos, so that in the event
of a newer backport for security or bug fixes, that it will be
automatically presented with other updates.
No.
as the update applet currently works it would show the backport as
an update even if you dont have an earlier backport installed,
defeating the purpose of having separate /updates vs /backports
This is conditional on first modifying the update tools, as suggested next.
A backport should only update an already installed backport.
(Similarly for nonfree and tainted, if that is not already the case.)
We should not change the behaviour of medias tagged as update repo. If
we want a different behaviour for backports then we should tag those
medias as backport, not update.
The idea is, once the tools are appropriately adjusted, to tag the backport
repos as update media, as in rpmdrake. But alternately we could get the
update tools to automatically treat backport repos as update media for
backports.
backports are not updates, why should we tag them as update ?
If you are talking about the packages themselves, of course _backports
packages_ should be tagged as backports, and regular update packages as
updates.
However talking about _backport repos_, exactly how we tag them is
arbitrary.
Although obviously backports are updates relative to the initial release
in question, so it is not unreasonable to tag the backport repos as updates.
--
André
