Le mercredi 05 août 2009 à 14:27 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit : > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > It also would require multiple CVS branches, one for security, one for > > > adventurous, as well as different buildroots to go along with those, > > > since you wouldn't be able to build a security update for a gnome > > > package against the newer adventurous gtk and expect it to work on the > > > older GTK, likewise if you had to modify a gnome package to work with > > > newer gtk, you dont' want those modifications in the way if/when you > > > need to do a conservative security update for it later. > > > > Oh I forgot, you also need -testing versions of each of those repos, so > > for any release, you could have updates, updates-testing, experimental, > > and experimental-testing repo options and build targets and buildroot > > shuffling going on. WHAT FUN! > > Mandriva has a /testing repository for /updates, but not for /backports, > on the basis that /backports is fundamentally unstable so you may as > well just do your testing in the repo. This works fine, so far. Well, some people ( me to some extend ) are not really happy with this, because some users tends to auto upgrade even with /backports and then complaint when something is broken. Once you tell them "this is backports, do not expect everything to be functionnal", they start to recommend to others to not use this repository, thus giving /backports a bad reputation because of a few bad apples. But having /testing for /backports would have been maybe too complex, indeed. We didn't found a good solution when we discussed last time. ( and this was also discussed to death on mandriva mailling list too ) -- Michael Scherer -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
