[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Automatic" backports

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:20:22AM +0200, Cyril LAVIER wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:45:42 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> Hi Mike.
> >I'm one of those people believing that packages that do grant a
> >backport
> >shouldn't require modification to do so. As such, all the packages I
> >backport have no modifications in their source compared to the
> >version
> >in testing/unstable, besides the obvious debian/changelog change.
> >
> Sadly for you, I'm not of one those people.
> >This means such packages could just automatically flow into
> >backports. I
> >must say it would make my life easier if it were the case ; I happen
> >to regularly forget to push security updates to lenny-backports.
> >
> For Security updates, I completely understand this is a problem, but
> when somebody performs a backport, he has to maintain the backport
> and work with the maintainers.

Maybe I'm just an exception, I don't know, but I *am* the maintainer of
the packages I backport.

> In some cases, this is not done, but I don't think it's a reason for
> generalizing "automated backports". I think putting notifications to
> the backport maintainer could be better (based on the diffstats
> page), but there is no actual magical solution for this.

There is no magical solution that works for everyone. However, there is
a magical solution that works in some cases. I'm not asking that all
backports are automatic, I'm hoping that some could be. That could be
entirely opt-in.


Reply to: