Hi, On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:38:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right > > time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would > > personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for > > normal packages ("normal" backport maintainer = maintainer of the > > package in unstable). > > > > Of course, that doesn't remove the possibility for people to upload NMU > > backports when the maintainer is not responsive/interested in providing > > a backport. But then the normal rules of NMUs should apply (in > > particular, the NMUer must not change the Maintainer field, and should > > monitor the bugs of the package). > > Well, I'm not sure NMU versioning would apply but +1 in general. Anyone > providing a backport is de-facto a co-maintainer of the package and should > subscribe to the PTS of the package. That way he would also be informed of > security bugs that need to be investigated for his backport. > > On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > > > > > Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right > > > time to reconsider > > > > Some other possibilities; > > Move *-backports (and *-volatile) into the main archive like they are in Ubuntu. > > > > Merge the backports website into www.debian.org or wiki.debian.org. > > +1 as well, I always thought that was the plan since the beginning. It's just a new > suite and it would benefit from the default mirror network. And 500 > more packages are not going to make a difference on the current mirrors > IMO. +1 to everything. Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature