Re: New user requests and etch-bpo
Alexander Wirt <email@example.com> wrote:
> When processing NEW I try to look for the following
> * Is the backport neccessary? I don't think we should upload packages to bpo
> simply because we can do it if you can install the package directly from
> testing without any recompilation we shouldn't add it to bpo. Pinning
Okay, that would disqualify auctex. I think I'll not provide
etch-backports of it, then. Things are a bit different with tex-common:
Although I think that it was possible to install the etch version on
sarge systems, at least most of the time, I think it would make sense to
upload it. The reason is that texlive packages will have tight
dependencies on tex-common, and those will be available on backports.org
(as soon as TL 2007 enters lenny).
I think it would be strange to have to install tex-common from etch with
pinning, when texlive which depends on it is on backports.org.
> * The package should be in testing. Of course there are some execptions:
> Security updates. If your package had a security update you can upload a
> new backport even if its not yet in testing. There are also some other
> exeception for packages like the kernel, xorg oder oo.org. If you want an
> exception or are unsure about uploading a package. Talk with us.
> There is also some technical limitation backports in etch-bpo must have a
> bigger version than in sarge-bpo please take this in mind if you upload
> packages. You also cannot have the same version of a package in sarge-bpo and
> in etch-bpo.
Couldn't the "package is in testing" criterion also be enforced
technically? There were some uploads of sid packages which happened by
mistake AFAIR. In the rare cases of security updates, manual
intervention would be needed, though.
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)