Le 10/03/2010 08:47, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
> Le 10/03/2010 03:12, Davy Defaud a écrit :
>  
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Guillaume Rousse
>> <Guillaume.Rousse@(protected):
>>
>>  
>>> The whole question of the discussion is "should we, the packagers,
>>> restrict ourselves submitting packages in backport when we need them,
>>> because they may have unexpected consequences for average users who
>>> blindly install them, without bothering reading documentations about
>>> various package section update policies ?".
>>>    
>> Oh, really?! There is a documentation explaining that backports have the
>> same purpose than testing and that it's only for packagers' use?...
>> Would you please excuse my ignorance and laziness? Please give me the
>> link, I do want to read it.
>> I thought that backports was for backporting softwares: what a stupid
>> idea of mine!
>>  
> You should read better what I said, and stop interpreting it.

Non sense, when you read something you have to interpret it.
Every reading is subjective, we are human beings.

> Anyone can
> use what is there. Just stop crying if it breaks, in your case, and
> simply revert the change.
>  

You didn't read me neither. Don't worry about me, I know how to deal
with that sort of things.
When trying to upgrade my system, urpmi told me that he had to suppress
firefox-fr and firefox-ext-adblock-plus, so I didn't install them.
But when I saw that it was not considered as an issue and it wouldn't be
fixed, I decided to install the packages from cooker (kinda manual
backport), and I'm perfectly happy with them.

I don't blame the one who forgot to backport language packs and
extensions, everybody makes mistake, once again, we are all human beings.
But I still don't understand why *you* consider that it is not an issue
to be fixed.

> And the wiki page is quite clear:
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy
> "These packages should have been tested by the maintainer and by Cooker
> users and should be safe to use, but we still recommend against
> upgrading applications unless you are sure you want or need a feature of
> the new version. "
>  

You are focusing on the second part of this phrase, but the main one is
« These packages should have been tested by the maintainer and by Cooker
users and should be safe to use ».
You should interpret what you read. :-P

> I'd add "and ready to face the potential adverse consequences".
>
>  

I am ready.

>> May I suggest to rename backports into "packagersstuff"? So that the
>> average stupid users won't be mistaken anymore?
>>  
> A name doesn't carry any information, a written documentation does.
>  

A well chosen name summarizes all the information. That is what words
are for.
And I think release, updates, backports and testing are petty well
significant enough.

The only missing information here is that backports are not fully
supported by Mandriva and may break things.

>> I'm so sorry to make you waste your time. I know that you are very busy,
>> as you still haven't had time to give me the short feedback I asked you
>> 2 weeks ago about GoogleEarth improvements
>> https://plf.zarb.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=266#c7 (I know it's out of
>> topic, but it's a good opportunity to share the information with a few
>> people).
>>  
> Absolutly off topic, and not really a critical issue.
>  

Perfectly assumed. Did I say it was critical?! I did set the bug status
to "enhancement". At least, I'm sure you (and a few others) get the
information. Once again, I did my own package and I'm happy with it. I
just want to share my experience. It's done. Now, do what you want with
it...