Radu-Cristian FOTESCU a écrit :
From: andre999<and...@laposte.net>
[...]
...
Considering your concern for the application, maybe you would
like to package it for Mageia. You could ensure that it is always up to date,
and that it
works properly, and is properly supported. (The packager is a key player in
support.) Just
because it is called a backport doesn't mean that it won't work. The packager
mentoring
program will help you get started :)
-- André
Well, first of all, I never liked the _concept_ of backports. Too many
repositories, too complex
tree already. One of the reasons I wasn't very fond of Mandriva (the other
reason being the
IaOra theme(s).)
As Stormi suggested, you could consider backports as "feature updates". (Whether or not the
repository names change.)
There is a certain logic for having separate backport repositories.
It is normal to put more focus on security updates and bug fixes, than
introducing new features.
The former could also be considered release blockers, but never backports.
So QA focuses on security updates and bug fixes.
Also, Mandriva provided corporate support for the former, but not backports. Of course this
concept doesn't apply to a volonteer community distro such as Mageia.
Mageia policy is inherited from Mandriva, but is evidently subject to changes.
In terms of support, the nature of support by Mageia is yet to be defined, but it is starting to be
discussed.
From the NON-rolling distros, Fedora is arguably the only one who tries to
bring newer versions
of a number of applications throughout its 12+1 months lifecycle. w/o using
backports. My
opinion is that, as long as system libraries are _not_ upgraded, many other
packages
(applications!) should be updated as appropriate. Otherwise, the result would
be that Windows
users would have more freedom and ease in decided what version of the
[multi-platform
open-source] applications to use than Linux users! (Except, of course, the
users of
rolling-release distros, and except for users of
unstable/rawhide/cooker/cauldron...)
I know, I should probably be using Fedora as long as _some_ of their principles
suit my views
much more than Mageia does or than Mandriva did. However, Fedora lacks
something like Mandriva
Control Center, and yum is millions of times slower than urpmi, therefore...
I appreciate the same strengths inherited by Mageia.
Not to mention that most of the best people Mandriva had are now with Mageia,
which makes this
distro hard to ignore... (Je crois qu'on appelle cela zugzwang...)
I agree totally. Mageia is the best of the old Mandriva.
So what I propose is that you seriously consider packaging your application for
Mageia.
We find a mentor for you to apprentice with, to familiarise you with the
process.
In choosing a mentor, it would help to find someone in the same time zone.
You're in Canada ? What time zone ?
(I'd offer to mentor you myself, being also in Canada, but I'm not yet a full
packager.)
When I started, I was able to package my favorite application to start with, hopefully you can do
the same, if it's not too complicated. (Since you indicate that it doesn't have dependancies
to/from other packages, I suspect that it would be relatively straight-forward.)
Once you have started packaging, you have a better chance to influence Mageia policy, if you still
think that it should be changed.
But in any case you would be able to ensure that your package is available on Mageia, and is always
up to date.
And of course, ensure that it works properly.
So, isn't it worth a try ? :)
R-C
--
André
