Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 19:38:05 schreef Sander Lepik: > 22.06.2012 19:29, Claire Robinson kirjutas: > > On 22/06/12 17:00, AL13N wrote: > >> Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 14:46:17 schreef Sander Lepik: > >>> Yes, that's what happens when you use backports. But this case can be > >>> solved. Person having this problem will install X-foo from backports and > >>> case is probably closed (yes! this is what you have to do if you are > >>> using > >>> backports). If not then s/he is still on his/her own as we are dealing > >>> with > >>> backports. It's not something you can make bulletproof (and we really > >>> shouldn't waste too much time on it). > >> > >> which is exactly my point, this is not being "supported" at all... > > > > Perhaps "tested" is a better word :) > > +1, tested sounds a lot better. "Tested by QA" and that's it :)
ok, i guess when people said, supported, i immediately assumed full support. that kind of misled me. tested by QA, ok. but we still can't guarantee that it won't be installable without error, or even that update might not be installable due to an installed backport. In any case, not something i'll recommend to people, and as such, i don't think there's a need for mgaapplet to handle backport functionality either.
