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. Like everything in Debian, there are people for it, and people against it. I think that it can be done in a way that makes both sides happy. Either by doing an automated backport in backports-automated, so people don't have to use it if they don't want to, or allow maintainers to block their packages from being backported, etc. micah
Attachment:
pgpQt7p2fhsyT.pgp
Description: PGP signature