'Twas brillig, and Wolfgang Bornath at 09/06/11 11:03 did gyre and gimble: > 2011/6/9 Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie>: >> 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 09/06/11 10:40 did gyre and >> gimble: >>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote: >>> >>>> otoh, perhaps a missing package is also a bugfix... maybe we could >>>> file bug >>>> reports for missing packages and go through the updates route... >>> >>> Filing bug reports is not a bad idea, even if the new package will go to >>> backports. Just explain a little why it is important (to fix this in a >>> stable release). >>> >>> We probably need a new "version" in bugzilla because mga1+backports is >>> basically a new distro. A bug in backports shouldn't be filed against >>> "1" IMHO. > > There's already a lot of requests for missing packages in Bugzilla, > the question about filing such bug reports was answered long ago. > >> As I said in my original mail I really don't think backports is the >> right approach. >> >> I'd prefer to have a 3rd party repo than abuse backports to get the >> missing packages. > > I thought we will try to avoid 3rd party repos?
Yes we did, but I still think it would be better than using backports as backports is very specifically "not-supported updates" and if users have to add that media to get the missing packages then IMO this is very dangerous. Hence my statement that it would *prefer* to use a 3rd party repo over using backports as it is safer for the user. It doesn't mean to say I like the idea in an absolute sense. My *preferred* (i.e. absolute, not relative) is to use updates, but without the QA burden and overhead. Hope that clarifies. Col -- Colin Guthrie mageia(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/] Open Source: Mageia Contributor [http://www.mageia.org/] PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/] Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]