On 9 June 2011 14:17, Sander Lepik <sander.le...@eesti.ee> wrote: > 09.06.2011 15:13, Dexter Morgan kirjutas: >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Colin Guthrie<mag...@colin.guthr.ie> >> wrote: >>> >>> '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. >>> >>> 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 think updates would be the right place. >> >> Please no 3rd repo :) >> But i agree with you for updates for "new" packages ( no "new" versions ;) >> ) > > Indeed it's not good idea to suggest backports for novice users. +1 for > updates repo if the new package is just new thing and nothing is going to > depend on it or will suggest it before new Mageia release. > > -- > Sander > >
I think some novice users want the latest version of foo yesterday, so they do enable backports anyway. -- Ahmad Samir