Bug 24437

Created attachment 10803 [details]
description on backports repositories

Hi Nikos and thank you for this bug report.
I agree with you: this could probably benefit from a re-wording... :-)

However, this is how I understand it:

Let's imagine Mageia 7 is now finished and released.
It includes a program called mysecretpackage-1.0-1.mga7.rpm
If it's a small package, with very limited dependencies, it will probably be *updated* through the regular updates, so during Mga7 lifespan, we could move from version 1.0 to 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 3.0, or whatever...
But if this is a larger package (like, let's say KDE Plasma...), it will only benefit from security updates during Mga7 lifespan, and then we would probably move from version 1.0-1 to 1.0-2 and 1.0-3, i.e different packagings of the "original" 1.0 version including security patches.

Therefore, when you read "backport includes another version of software already present and not replaced", this means you would typically find a version 3.0 of "mysecretpackage.rpm" in backports even if this is a massive RPM with lots of dependencies. Version 3.0 being released after the release of Mageia7 which included version 1.0. Version 1.0 was already present, but could not be replaced via the usual updates because it would be too much of a hassle.

When you read "backport includes software published after a Mageia release", this is what it means: let's consider Mageia7 is published on March 1st, and "mysecretpackage.rpm" is a brand new program that I am going to publish only in June. Then, this program will be packaged for Cauldron (future Mga8), and a backport for Mageia7 might be packaged.

I hope this can make the description a little easier to understand, and I hope I will be corrected if I got anything wrong :-)

CC: (none) => sebsweb

HI,
The main feature of backports is that we can have two different releases of the same application that can be installed at user choice.

Updates will replace the previous release.

Backports won't. This doesn't mean that the two releases can be installed on the system. But we can propose them, for example if both releases have different features that are useful for users of each release.

CC: (none) => yves.brungard_mageia

Hi,
I decided to comment on this. In the meantime I see that Sébastien and Papoteur have provided a response. I'll go ahead anyway.

I have not used backports, and my (possibly simplistic) conception is this:
When a particular Mageia release is near or at the end of its term as the current version, newer versions of certain software may cease to be made available as routine updates. However, a package manager may choose to build newer software versions (or perhaps even entirely new software), for the less than current Mageia release. In such cases, these packages are then made available as ‘backports’.

Therefore, Nikos, 'testing' is not at all an intended function of backports.

Whether my interpretation properly reflects reality or not, I do think the wording highlighted by Nikos could be reworded.

CC: (none) => jasperodus

(In reply to Antony Baker from comment #4)

> However, a package manager may choose to build
> newer software versions (or perhaps even entirely new software), for the
> less than current Mageia release. In such cases, these packages are then
> made available as ‘backports’.

When I say "less than current", that is of course not a 100% strictly accurate description - what I mean, is a previous Mageia release or a current release which is close to becoming superceded.

Whatever, to my mind backports *may* be provided by a packager - when such packages would no longer (as a matter of course) be provided in the form of a standard update for a particular Mageia release - and in such cases, it is up to the individual packager concerned whether or not to provide backports at all.

Anyway, that is how I interpret it.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

If I understood correctly,
I will try to rephrase the sentence,
and you can correct it furthermore.

> Includes brand new programs published after the Mageia release,
> or alternative versions of software already present.

I say "programs", hoping to make it more understood.
"Packages" might imply updates.
"Software" is not clear enough for the non technical user.
Maybe "applications" is even better, these days:
"brand new applications".
With "brand new" I try to make it clear,
that they are not updates.

I leave out the whole "not replaced" part,
because you say the packages get replaced,
by security updates, in the standard way.
Or if you choose the backport version,
you may have to replace the old version
(most of the time ?).

My penny's worth (Backports have always seemed enigmatic to me):
"New applications introduced after this Mageia release; or major more recent versions of existing programs that do not automatically replaca them, but can be installed in their place."

(In reply to Lewis Smith from comment #7)
> My penny's worth (Backports have always seemed enigmatic to me)

https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Updates_policy#Version_Policy gives the official position on what is allowed as an update. If a newer version of a package is introduced that doesn't meet those conditions (and isn't granted an exception), it should go in backports. Having said that, I don't think these rules are always adhered to.

CC: (none) => mageia

I am quite happy with the rewording that Lewis has suggested in comment #7 :-)

I propose:
includes alternative versions of sofware published after Mageia release and which can conflict with already present version

This is an invitation to not use it by default.

(In reply to Lewis Smith from comment #7)
> that do not automatically replaca them, but
> can be installed in their place."
It's like saying, "they don't replace them, but they will replace them".
The users need to read this 2-3 times to understand it, correctly,
granted that they already know how Mageia's update system works, more or less.
A new Mageia or a new Linux user will be confused.

(In reply to papoteur from comment #10)
> which can conflict with already present version

I think this should be included in the description.

Hi there,
there is not too much to discuss in my opinion. An update, is very well defined, see:

https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Updates_policy

in which:

"An update shall be issued to either correct a defect in an application or packaging (bug) or to address a security vulnerability. Ref: Bug Policy"

That is all. If people are not happy with this, this must be discussed and changed on common ground, and voted. This is exactly what defines the distro version!!!

So everything which is not an update, is a backport. I have been quite pissed of with mga6 because various developers have broken this rule, and have introduced bugs in mga6 that were not present originally. This rule is made for a purpose. Minimizing new bugs, and allowing stability during version release. A backport allows to go further than this, but this *must* be distinguished from updates.

Updates are not here to allow users to have the latest version of their favorite software. This sentence is blinking!!!! That is the purpose of backports !

Cheers,
Chris.

CC: (none) => eatdirt

(In reply to Chris Denice from comment #13)
> Hi there,
> there is not too much to discuss in my opinion. An update, is very well
> defined, see:
> 
> https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Updates_policy
> 
> in which:
> 
> "An update shall be issued to either correct a defect in an application or
> packaging (bug) or to address a security vulnerability. Ref: Bug Policy"
> 
> That is all. If people are not happy with this, this must be discussed and
> changed on common ground, and voted. This is exactly what defines the distro
> version!!!
> 
> So everything which is not an update, is a backport. I have been quite
> pissed of with mga6 because various developers have broken this rule, and
> have introduced bugs in mga6 that were not present originally. This rule is
> made for a purpose. Minimizing new bugs, and allowing stability during
> version release. A backport allows to go further than this, but this *must*
> be distinguished from updates.
> 
> Updates are not here to allow users to have the latest version of their
> favorite software. This sentence is blinking!!!! That is the purpose of
> backports !
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris.

Hi Chris,

Regarding the current definition in Mageia Welcome for backports, what would you consider to be an appropriate rewording?

Thanks,
Antony.

I know that all this thread started because the current way to define seems to confuse users. Well, I don't know if my mind is weird, but I do understand clearly what are negations. So, I can suggest this, but again, I may not be the right person to write this!

Updates Repository:
It contains only updated packages that are issued to either correct a defect in an application, to fix a packaging bug or to address a security vulnerability. 

Backports Repository:
All the other new packages which are not updates.



If you want some extra warnings, why not adding something like this:

For instance, a newest version of a package which is not fixing a bug but simply adding new functionalities would be there. Backports are made at the packager's discretion such that only a few packages will have a Backport counterpart. You may encounter bugs by enabling this repository which would not be present otherwise.

(In reply to Chris Denice from comment #15)
> Updates Repository:
> ...
> 
> Backports Repository:
> ...


But there is no "Updates Repository:" in the current description (see attachment), so the above wouldn't work.

I 'll try another...
> Includes newer packages that are not officially supported. They may cause bugs, or conflicts.

Short and clear, I think. 

As long as this description is true. That is, as long as the backports packages are not officially supported.

This way we avoid the information overload, for the new user.
And we avoid the riddle of explaining a somehow complicated thing in just two lines of description.

nikos papadopoulos from comment #16)
> I 'll try another...
> > Includes newer packages that are not officially supported. They may cause
> > bugs, or conflicts.
> 
> Short and clear, I think. 

But inaccurate. Backports are officially supported, and go through the normal QA process. They don't cause conflicts, they just replace the older versions. Yes, they may introduce new bugs, but even normal updates may do that. QA can't catch everything! It's true that there is a higher risk of new bugs with backports, because more has changed, and that's one reason for not allowing them to be normal updates. Another reason is that sometimes new versions will remove features or drop support for old hardware.

(In reply to Martin Whitaker from comment #17)
> But inaccurate. 

Just enabled backports in Mageia 6.
In Mageia's Control Center, 
in Install or Uninstall Software ,
at the left drop down menu,
there is an entry for Backports.
After choosing that,
went at the packages list.
Clicking on any of those rpms,
the description says about the following:
> This is a new version from Backports.
> It is not supported by Mageia.
> Might destroy your system.

The above fully contradicts comment #17.

Lots of confusion and contradictions here.

(In reply to nikos papadopoulos from comment #18)
> The above fully contradicts comment #17.
> 
> Lots of confusion and contradictions here.

Indeed, that really doesn't match the intent expressed in https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Backports_policy.

I'll try something else...

A neutral one:

+ backports
     they include alternative versions or newer software; 
     enabling them is left at your discretion


A cautious one:

+ backports
     they include alternative versions or newer software; 
     enable them if you think you need to

I''ll rephrase the above:
      they include alternative versions or completely new software;
      enabling them is left at your discretion
or...
     they include alternative versions or completely new software; 
     enable them if you think you need to

(In reply to nikos papadopoulos from comment #21)
> I''ll rephrase the above:
>       they include alternative versions or completely new software;
>       enabling them is left at your discretion
> or...
>      they include alternative versions or completely new software; 
>      enable them if you think you need to


I'm sorry but I don't really like those rewordings.
I think this is really not helping anyone, especially not the MageiaWelcome target audience.
It seems to be more complicated than anticipated, but I would like the packagers to come to some kind of agreement about how backports are going to be used.
Then, I think we need to make it clear if backports should be enabled by newbies, confirmed users or only advanced users who will be able to face the "annoying" consequences of some (many? all?) of the packages in these repositories.

This was just discussed on the dev mailing list. So far, all respondents
agree with ...

Backports include new versions of packages, and new packages,
that do not meet the updates policy.

CC: (none) => davidwhodgins

The message of comment 23 is now in 1.96 release.

Status: NEW => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => FIXED