Description of problem: Latest available Bleachbit package in Mageia 4 is version 1.0 and is rather out of date. Bleachbit has undergone significant development and has now reached v1.6. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Reproducible: Steps to Reproduce:
Assignee: bugsquad => doktor5000
(In reply to Brian T from comment #0) > Description of problem: > Latest available Bleachbit package in Mageia 4 is version 1.0 and is rather > out of date. Bleachbit has undergone significant development and has now FWIW, please have a look at our https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Updates_policy Version update only for the sake of a new version is usually not done, apart where it's not possible otherwise to backport security or bug fixes. Nevertheless, as this package was unmaintained for quite some time, I've submitted bleachbit-1.6-1.mga4 to core/updates_testing. Please test once it hits your local mirror. There are even additional cleanerml plugins included, from https://github.com/az0/cleanerml
Status: NEW => ASSIGNEDCC: (none) => doktor5000Hardware: x86_64 => All
Component: New RPM package request => RPM Packages
(In reply to Florian Hubold from comment #1) > I've submitted bleachbit-1.6-1.mga4 to core/updates_testing. Please test once > it hits your local mirror. There are even additional cleanerml plugins > included, from https://github.com/az0/cleanerml @Brian: Were you able to test the update candidate yet?
Sorry Florian, real life got the better of me! But yes, I've just managed to test the new package, and it installs cleanly and works perfectly for me. Thanks a lot!
Florian, it sounds like this is ready to go to QA. Brian, which architecture did you test (i586 or x86_64)?
@QA Team: There's no real advisory, as it was an update of an outdated package to the current version, and I've added some additional cleanerml plugins. Please shoot if you need further details. (In reply to David Walser from comment #4) > Brian, which architecture did you test (i586 or x86_64)? It was initially reported against x86_64, so I presume that's what Brian tested. Brian, can you please confirm that?
Assignee: doktor5000 => qa-bugs
Where do we draw the line for this kind of thing? It's really a breech of the updates policy, which we are partially there to police. It's something which would otherwise have been a backport, but we currently have 3 backports stalled due to needing sysadmin work completing before they can be pushed/supported. That may be reason enough to relax our updates policy for certain leaf packages which would otherwise be classified as backports. I/We are not able to unilaterally make that decision though, it would need to be discussed at council level. Can you raise the issue there please Florian. I'll add the feedback marker on this one for now.
Whiteboard: (none) => feedback
CC: (none) => ennael1, rverschelde, tmb
As far as the advisory goes, we'd need at least a package list and srpm though please.
Well, we also have quite a lot of unmaintained packages, which might even be dead or unmaintained upstream for several years. How do you propose to handle bugs reported against them in a stable release, if there's no patch available anywhere, and we can't create one ourselves? We can only update it to a new version if applicable, as we cannot drop it anymore as it's on release media. We could only obsolete it with an empty package ... As the reporter has his fixed package and as the fix is in cauldron, I'd have no objections if you reject this update. Nobody else asked for bleachbit so far. ==== list of packages NOARCH bleachbit-1.6-1.mga4.noarch.rpm SRPM bleachbit-1.6-1.mga4.src.rpm
Priority: Normal => Low
To me the line is not too hard to draw: if the update fixes bugs or security issues, or if the package is old enough that it has become obsolete (can't work with others, can't connect to online services, has become harmful over time...), then updating it to a new version can be a way to go, after having considered light patching instead. In the case of bleachbit, I don't know. At first sight it looks like a backport candidate. We would need arguments about why the update is needed, if someone can provide them :)
(In reply to Samuel VERSCHELDE from comment #9) > > In the case of bleachbit, I don't know. At first sight it looks like a > backport candidate. We would need arguments about why the update is needed, > if someone can provide them :) It is a backport candidate to me, but the main argument in favour of an exception to the updates policy, is that there will probably never be backports for Mageia 4 before its EOL...
There is an argument that this updates it to a currently supported version from an unsupported version, perhaps, or if there are security issues. You'd need to supply that info in the advisory though if that is the case. As presented it appears as simply wanting the latest/greatest which makes it a backport.
Mageia 4 EOL is coming: http://blog.mageia.org/en/2015/09/10/mageia-4-about-to-reach-its-end-of-life/
Status: ASSIGNED => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => OLD