mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 00:23, andre999 ha scritto:
A leaf package is a package that is not required by any other package.
But leaf packages will always require something else.
If B requires A, then A is not a leaf package, even though B could be.
When backporting B, we test to make sure
2011/6/29 Angelo Naselli anase...@linux.it:
mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 00:23, andre999 ha scritto:
A leaf package is a package that is not required by any other package.
But leaf packages will always require something else.
If B requires A, then A is not a leaf package, even though B could
Le mercredi 29 juin 2011 à 10:56 +0200, Angelo Naselli a écrit :
mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 00:23, andre999 ha scritto:
A leaf package is a package that is not required by any other package.
But leaf packages will always require something else.
If B requires A, then A is not a leaf
mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 15:37, Michael Scherer ha scritto:
If we start to add exception while we do not even have started to agree
on the general case, we are never gonna go anywhere :)
Yes sorry, that was not my intention :)
I do believe we're an open community and as in every open
Op woensdag 29 juni 2011 17:28:30 schreef Angelo Naselli:
mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 15:37, Michael Scherer ha scritto:
If we start to add exception while we do not even have started to agree
on the general case, we are never gonna go anywhere :)
Yes sorry, that was not my intention :)
Michael Scherer a écrit :
Le mercredi 29 juin 2011 à 10:56 +0200, Angelo Naselli a écrit :
mercoledì 29 giugno 2011 alle 00:23, andre999 ha scritto:
A leaf package is a package that is not required by any other package.
But leaf packages will always require something else.
If B requires A,
domenica 26 giugno 2011 alle 13:38, Michael Scherer ha scritto:
See the thread about policy, and the part about only packages that
nothing requires should be backported.
I can't see very well the leaf story... I mean any packages
require something at least to build. Scripts need interpreters, so
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 09:25 +0200, Angelo Naselli a écrit :
domenica 26 giugno 2011 alle 13:38, Michael Scherer ha scritto:
See the thread about policy, and the part about only packages that
nothing requires should be backported.
I can't see very well the leaf story... I mean any packages
Angelo Naselli a écrit :
domenica 26 giugno 2011 alle 13:38, Michael Scherer ha scritto:
See the thread about policy, and the part about only packages that
nothing requires should be backported.
I can't see very well the leaf story... I mean any packages
require something at least to build.
'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 25/06/11 23:16 did gyre and gimble:
we
always say that backports should mainly be cherry picked, but not
enabled all the time... so how does installing a new version of e.g.
wine break the user's system when he can easily back out that rpm?
I a not sure
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:17:22 +0100
Colin Guthrie wrote:
'Twas brillig, and Michael Scherer at 25/06/11 23:16 did gyre and gimble:
we
always say that backports should mainly be cherry picked, but not
enabled all the time... so how does installing a new version of e.g.
wine break the
Le mardi 28 juin 2011 à 09:55 +1200, John a écrit :
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:17:22 +0100
Colin Guthrie wrote:
That said, a GUI which detected that certain packages have come from
backports and offers and easy mechanism to switch back to the older
one from release or updates would, IMO, be a
Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 21:39:51, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Schererm...@zarb.org wrote:
...
- I am not sure on this part, but basically, we have 2 choices :
- the packager take the cauldron package and push to backport testing
-
Op zondag 26 juni 2011 00:16:59 schreef Michael Scherer:
[...]
we
always say that backports should mainly be cherry picked, but not
enabled all the time... so how does installing a new version of e.g.
wine break the user's system when he can easily back out that rpm?
I a not sure that
I a not sure that most people realize they can revert. Maybe a easier
interface to do that could be offered ( along maybe with a tool that
send feedback on why it did downgrade it ? ).
that's not a bad idea, what is the best way to revert? is that with --old-
package ?
Maybe I'm
26.06.2011 12:35, Michael Scherer kirjutas:
urpme package; urpmi package
That's not so easy if something depends on that package. How hard is it to implement rpm's
--oldpackage to urpmi? I really don't know but i hope it's nothing too hard.
--
Sander
Op zondag 26 juni 2011 12:10:14 schreef Sander Lepik:
26.06.2011 12:35, Michael Scherer kirjutas:
urpme package; urpmi package
That's not so easy if something depends on that package. How hard is it to
implement rpm's --oldpackage to urpmi? I really don't know but i hope
it's nothing too
Le dimanche 26 juin 2011 à 13:10 +0300, Sander Lepik a écrit :
26.06.2011 12:35, Michael Scherer kirjutas:
urpme package; urpmi package
That's not so easy if something depends on that package. How hard is it to
implement rpm's
--oldpackage to urpmi? I really don't know but i hope it's
Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 21:39:51, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Hi,
as said in the thread of firefox 5, and in the meeting of packager
sooner this week, this is the first mail about backports ( on 3 ).
So here is the proposal of a
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2011 19:33:15 schreef Samuel Verschelde:
[...]
However, I think it must be made a painless as possible to packagers :
- in the common case, allow to submit directly from cauldron to the
backports media, but let the BS detect that and automatically do the SVN
copy part.
-
Le samedi 25 juin 2011 21:22:20, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 25 June 2011 19:33, Samuel Verschelde sto...@laposte.net wrote:
Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 21:39:51, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
- Someone request a backport ( by bugzilla, by
On 25 June 2011 22:15, Samuel Verschelde sto...@laposte.net wrote:
Le samedi 25 juin 2011 21:22:20, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 25 June 2011 19:33, Samuel Verschelde sto...@laposte.net wrote:
Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 21:39:51, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Wolfgang Bornath
molc...@googlemail.com wrote:
The Request Backport Button could be a solution for non-english
speakers. They can not use Bugzilla because they can not write in
English to make their request understood, but they can find the
package name in a
Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 à 22:39 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit :
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Hi,
as said in the thread of firefox 5, and in the meeting of packager
sooner this week, this is the first mail about backports ( on 3 ).
So here is the proposal
- I am not sure on this part, but basically, we have 2 choices :
- the packager take the cauldron package and push to backport testing
- the packager move the cauldron package in svn to backport, and there
send it to backport testing.
copy i believe. IIUC we should branch cauldron into
Michael Scherer a écrit :
...
- Someone request a backport ...
- a packager decide to do it. ...
- I am not sure on this part, but basically, we have 2 choices :
- the packager take the cauldron package and push to backport testing
- the packager move the cauldron package in svn to
On 24 June 2011 02:09, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Hi,
as said in the thread of firefox 5, and in the meeting of packager
sooner this week, this is the first mail about backports ( on 3 ).
So here is the proposal of a process, based on the feedback of people,
and the idea of some
27 matches
Mail list logo
