Re: Care of your packages Was: Accepted dh-ocaml 0.4.1~bpo50+1 (source all)
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:54:23 +0100
Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net> wrote:
> Jan Wagner a écrit :
> > My intention of the my "rant" was just, to avoid to leave unmainted
> > versions on backports.org, which is not, what the users expect. If
> > you want to have an impression, have a look on the older[1] and the
> > outdated[2] packages.
>
> My "rant" would be about your decision to backport a recent version of
> dh-ocaml without contacting the original maintainers.
>
> As said elsewhere, keeping an "old" version of dh-ocaml in the
> backports was done *on purpose*, because versions >= 0.9 of dh-ocaml
> introduce very intrusive changes in the packaging workflow/toolchain
> not suitable for the backports. For example, I backported an "old"
> version of camlbz2 *on purpose* because newer versions introduce
> changes only in the packages not relevant for a backport.
>
> With your backport of dh-ocaml 0.9.3, you've just complicated the
> backports of OCaml packages from now on.
>
And this is pretty much my point. There are numerous valid reasons for
wanting something in lenny-backports that's newer than what's in lenny,
but is not as new as the version in squeeze. Remember, people who are
running stable are running it for a reason; even with backports, they
don't necessarily want to be tracking the latest versions of packages.
They presumably care about a specific feature that's not present in
stable.
Reply to: