On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:56:41 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > On 29/09/11 at 09:17 -0400, micah anderson wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:35:20 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: > > > On 29/09/11 at 09:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > What do the backports people think about that? > > > > > > I like the idea a lot. There are many packages that would just work when > > > automatically backported, but we don't have the manpower to backport > > > them all. > > > > > > Maybe this could be started as an unofficial service (on debian.net)? > > > > Automated backporting was discussed in some detail at Debconf in > > Spain. > > Do you have a more precise pointer to that discussion? Google wasn't > helpful, but maybe I'm just using the wrong keywords. I don't, I tried to find it, but I am on a slow connection and I could not download the videos to find the exact one. It may not have been recorded, but I seem to recall that it was part of a FTP master talk in the Q&A session. micah
Attachment:
pgp5gwXsAqK2s.pgp
Description: PGP signature