[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: procinfo (backports package)

Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Unfortunately I adopted procinfo too late, testing was already in
> freeze, and new upstream are rejected by the release-team.

I am sorry to hear that news.  But then the place to take the issue up
with would be the release-team.  Backports isn't meant as a way to
bypass Debian release criteria.  It is instead a way to sit between
the previous release and the next release.  When the next release
occurs a user who is using backports may upgrade to the new release
and expect to have a released Stable system.  This means that packages
must be available in Testing giving the expectation that they will be
in the next released Stable.  If a package isn't available in Testing
then an upgrade from Backports to the next Stable can't be assured.

> From 1:2.0.208-1 procinfo was replaced by procinfo-ng, the old
> procinfo in testing/stable is completely wrong, broken on 64bit
> platforms, many features are broken, other features are pointless on
> 2.6 kernels (cat /proc/filesystems, done as a every 2 seconds poll?)

No release is ever completely perfect.  We have had 64-bit systems for
a long time now (I myself use a 64-bit system as my primary machine)
and while there may be some known problems that apparently doesn't
make the system unusable or I would expect that this would have been
addressed soon enough to get into the release or the release-team
would have worked to get these into the next release.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: