AL13N wrote: > Op vrijdag 8 juni 2012 20:40:04 schreef Samuel Verschelde: >> Le vendredi 8 juin 2012 16:58:24, andre999 a écrit : > [...] >> > But wouldn't current tools update backports if backports are active ? >> >> No, they wouldn't :) > > but isn't this a bug? just like nonfree/tainted... etc...
Yes. For a workaround add "update" to /etc/urpmi/urpmi.cfg backports section. > code to detect what you had and use it for next upgrade, would be good. > but that would not be easy, unless we just keep it simple and fallback if > people don't have a standard layout. > > In any case, > > Stormi: what is your suggestion to change in the backport policy? or do > you think we can keep it, but we'd need alot more effort for some > "features"? -- blind Pete Sig goes here...