Re: Opening Squeeze backports
On 12/11/2010 02:28 AM, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> A package which got removed from testing because of whatever
> reasons is not something I would consider to be a good automatic
> candidate for a subsequent stable release as well.
Unless there's a strong emphasis on the word "automatic" on the above
sentence, I strongly oppose with that one. Sure, nothing should be
automatic, that has never been the case, and I don't think it should
ever be. But a removal from testing shouldn't be the reason of a
rejection from backports either.
When a package is removed from Testing, one of the argument from the RT
often is that anyway, there's backports, and it's official, so removal
wouldn't be a problem.
If the package was in Lenny, and if you don't want a time gap between
availability in Lenny, backports supporting Squeeze and having the
package. This is why I asked about supporting Squeeze before it's out
(because there's no way to have it at the same time, is it?).
If people behind backports are saying this, there's something really
wrong in the reasoning and answering of the RT, or at least a strong
communication problem!
On 12/11/2010 02:20 AM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> [...] Another release would mean more work for us. Also we
> use releases to redefine the policy where its needed and that part is
> also not finished yet. Also we need announcements, docs and so on.
> Maybe you want to start with documenting -sloppy? Its always easy to
> tell other people what they have to do - or not to do.
>
> Alex - who wishes that discussion would come to an end.
That's a much better argument. The lack of human power is always one.
Now, may I help so that it happens sooner? :)
How much time after the release do you think this can happen?
Thomas
Reply to: