Re: Opening Squeeze backports
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:49:16AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 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!
Correct. Can you point at the statement from the release team that a
package that has been rejected from squeeze is an immediate candidate for an
upload to squeeze-backports?
- Matt
Reply to: