On Thursday 12 November 2015 22:45:38 Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > 1) You probably remember that Wheezy did not have Zabbix which did not > > make it into oldstable release before freeze. Then release team > > recommended to maintain Zabbix in backports so I did and Wheezy had > > Zabbix only form backports. Why am I reminding about that? Because it is > > the same 2.2.x LTS branch that is in Jessie and which I want to upload > > to backports. > Releaseteam is not in a position to decide that. And to be honest I am > shocked that that was the case. If you would have asked, you would have > earned the same answer and a removal. It was with full compliance with backporting policy. Zabbix was in "testing" back then (it was just missing from "stable"). > I think the whole process of unstable->testing > migration is a relevant part of backports as I see it. > [...] > No. Its also that we want versions in backports that are used outside of > backports too. We really don't want to backports carries stuff that isn't > available elsewhere. And to be honest, given the experience of the last > years we think should handle those cases even more strict as they are at > the moment. Understood, thank you for explaining. > > Please let me know if I've missed a Debian facility allowing to deliver > > conservative upstream stable releases to users of current "stable" > > without > > replacing software that were frozen in stable. I thought that backports > > is a perfect facility for that... > > such ja facility is missing at the moment, but backports is not meaned as > such. Do we have anything on road map to cover this gap? I've never thought about sloppy backport before so I wonder when it might become available? Thanks. -- Best wishes, Dmitry Smirnov. --- The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. -- Winston Churchill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.