© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
bbfa235
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #80)
> No it's not, letting backports satisfy updates is opening up for a complete
> mess...
The patch does not let backports satisfy updates. This would only happen if you have backports as an active media. But there is no reason to enable backport medias if you don't want all backports, you can keep backports media disabled and still install selected backports, using rpmdrake or urpmi --seachmedia. There is no reason to enable backports media if you don't want all backports.
>
> - it means it will pull package combos that QA is not testing -> support is
> down to YMMW...
>
> - packages would need to have even stricte requires for it to work...
> currently most packages has Requires >= EVR to support upgrades easily. wich
> means packages should switch to only "=" or ">=" and "<=" to make sure the
> correct deps comes in... and in order for that to be really working, someone
> should test that too...
>
>
> As for the thing about "if they have the media enabled, they want it" is not
> really true either...
>
> - if you enable backports because you want spme specific package(s), and
> MageiaUpdate runs before you disable the media again, it will liste new updates
> to install, and the enduser wont see that they are coming from the backports
> media.
You should not enable backports media if only installing specific backports. If you do this you will not only have this problem with MageiaUpdate but also with rpmdrake or urpmi which are already pulling dependencies from all active medias.