On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 16:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
2010/9/20 MichaĆ Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com>:
> Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade.
> It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool
You understand that what you have just describe is not easily wrapped
into a self-consistent policy right? There are undoubtably "strange
problems" one one sort of another which impact "niche users" across
the existing packagescape and backports to address their problems
would not meet any reasonable definition that relied on the
anticipated desires of "most users." Every conceivable possible
update will most likely solve a problem for someone. You haven't
really sketched out a policy by which any reasonable person or persons
could judge suitability of a particular potential update and exclude
it from such a backports repository.
The Mandriva policy is a reasonable starting point:
http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy
it's sketchy and not greatly written, but the basic idea is that
backports should only be 'leaf' packages (things on which nothing else
depends) and libs required _only_ by the packages that are being
backported. Packages on which other, unrelated packages depend shouldn't
be backported.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net