Hi zack! On Tuesday, 2. February 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I understand it is difficult to draw a line here: on one hand you/we > don't want to carve in stone that without maintainer ack you shouldn't > backport (we are full of non-responsive maintainers, adding that will > block the process), on the other hand---and for the cases where > maintainers *are* responsive---it will just feel odd to receive an > "improper" backport without even a ping. I'm personally unable to draw > a generic line here, so let's just convey the message that we, debian > ocaml maintainers, welcome backports, but please drop a line before :-) > (we are usually quite reactive on #debian-ocaml for instance, see our > team page [1]). Yeah .. if I ever touch an ocalm package again, I will contact you guys. :) > On the other hand, about your suggestion of documenting backporting > practices in README.source, I don't think it would be appropriate. For > once, backports is not something official in Debian (at least "not yet", > whereas the recent move on the buildd front is a step in that > direction), so I don't think it would be realistic to hope maintainers > will diligently document backporting practices. Then, maintainers might > lack the appropriate knowledge on how backports work, as long as they've > never done one. Finally, README.source has currently a very specific > mean documented into the Debian policy, overloading it arbitrarily > doesn't seem a wise step to me. My intention was not to document general backport instructions. But in my mind, I try to keep my packaging straight and easy to read as possible, so other people can base on my work. Tighting build-deps together just for transitioning reasons may make life for outsiders less easier, so I thought there maybe anywhere a more prominent place, then the changelog, to clarify that for all involved packages this mechanism was used for that reason. Anyways ... that might not a good idea ... I'm not sure about that really. :) > As a suggestion, if you really want to push in this direction, you might > try the alternative path of suggesting people to introduce a > README.backports or such, which would be nothing official (yet?), but > which backports-sensible maintainers can start to spread. If its need > will be proved, one day it can become something officially part of DD > workflow. Actually I think, that would a bit overacted (for now). Thanks and with kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.