Hi there, Looks like it was you who uploaded the backport of puppet to backports.org[0]. I'd like to discuss this with you. First, thanks for doing this, I appreciate any work that anyone does to improve BPO, I use it a lot and contribute a lot of packages myself. However, I want to point out a couple process points[1] that were not followed here: 1. Reconsider if the package can be installed directly from testing without any recompilation and handled via pinning The puppet package can be installed directly from testing and from unstable, and has been deliberately maintained this way for some time. The previous maintainer, as well as the puppet-team have deliberately not backported this package because of this[2]. 2. Inform the Maintainer After (and sometimes even before) the backport was accepted, it may be a good idea to contact the maintainer of the package in Debian to tell him, that you backported his package. The puppet team was not asked about this backport, nor were we notified about it. Rather, we keep getting asked why the version in BPO is out of date and if we can update it. We did not want the backport there in the first place, and we do not want to get stuck with the task of updating it now that it is there. Would you kindly update the package to the latest testing release, subscribe to the puppet PTS page so you see when a new version hits testing and maintain that version increase in BPO? This would be fine, if you kept it up to date, otherwise I would kindly suggest a removal from BPO. Thanks! Micah ps. apologies for the CC if you are already subscribed to backports-users@lists.backports.org 0. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.backports.changes/262 1. http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute 2. https://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/PuppetDebian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature