Le jeudi 23 juin 2011 à 17:48 -0400, David W. Hodgins a écrit : > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:52:30 -0400, Ahmad Samir <ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 23 June 2011 07:58, Dexter Morgan <dmorga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> yes it needs to go to backports_testing before iirc > > > Got a link to a thread on -dev ML / irc meeting log / <insert your > > favourite communication method here>, where this was decided? > > This mailing list, thread "Release cycles proposals, and discussion", > messageid BANLkTimrPR-=ugqonfvakqpft80lni9...@mail.gmail.com > > Where Anne posted ... > > > exactly what I had in mind. Having backports can allow choice between > > "the last version of" and "the stable version with which I'm happy > > with". But indeed we need more quality in backport rpms that is policy > > and tests. > > In order for the qa team to perform the tests, before they go to the > backports repository, they have to go to to the testing repository > first. > > Something that works in cauldron may not work when moved to backports, > if a dependency is missed. By using backports_testing, we can catch > that before it hits the average user.
I think the question of ahmad was about "backport vs updates". And I think firefox is suitable for the list of package exceptions that should be backported rather than using a patch ( see http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=updates_policy ). And so, since I guess everybody assume that ff and chromium can go in the list, as they are unsupported upstream _and_ too complex to fix with a patch. And to answer to am -- Michael Scherer