call for re-evaluating the state of your backports
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Dear backporters!
As you might be aware, squeeze is in freeze. This means that packages
that are still flowing into testing do require to solve more pressing
issues and are meant to add more stability and bug fixes than anything
else.
In the light of this, and given that we want to be able to support
lenny-backports with potential security or otherwise serious bug updates
this is a good point to evaluate these points:
- -) Is the reason which made you stick behind with the package you
uploaded to lenny-backports still valid?
- -) Would an update be an improvement for the backports users, like
fixing release-critical bugs also affecting the backport?
- -) Do you follow security issues in your backports? For your
convenience, here is the link to the security-tracker:
<http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/status/release/stable-backports>
This call is not meant as pushing you to update the packages,
especially not if you have a valid reason to stick behind. It is just
meant as a reminder that we still consider you evaluating the state of
your backport from time to time and especially help to work against the
effort that would be potentially needed for any security and point
release update that happens during the squeeze release which very likely
should get applied to the backport, too.
I'm well aware that people are rather investing time to get squeeze out
finally, and that is a very good thing. But we shouldn't forget that we
also need to support our stable releases, and that includes the
backports.
Enjoy, and in case of doubt, feel free to ask me!
Rhonda [with her Backports Team hat on]
- --
"Hmph. This is why I don't like change. It changes things."
-- Faye Whitaker, http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=576
"Change is never fine. They say it is, but it's not."
-- Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory, Season 2, Episode 19
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJM0BJVAAoJEDH85+fdB5RhFi4H/3ymFfNUzvFRLvrNkC/N93G9
SAdG+lMfb70bQYIBVJ5aioDtislqvA9pAjQm0VQ87EKW+pYat6Cm46JTo2XcO17j
JQMuNA7XVnMotG5E4TWAXdQXGpO7fTvLAPH7YqN126AbsOtjtjzUcIlYzCRPquPN
K9RWYuG+L8PImRPRsWjeDZAjlKh4u3bboa/56ebgou9rk6PyhxXfrsHjGT5SkVOH
KfepqfNMlCbJmOAyeZRaYKT4RH7bygHf/zJt8L5kfQEucDC4ZSJN3ZqIof4G+Ido
0IByGR90xeMmBa/F90ifp/5kDm1gytN9XjpRLhrzN7Rq0o/qVMIIdSjPau7QbUs=
=8F5e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: