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

Re: Submitting backport of Zabbix 2.0.2 (sid package)

Hash: SHA1

Am 11.12.2012 22:22, schrieb Tim Jones:
>> Currently we are waiting for the release team to decide the fate
>> of Zabbix in Squeeze. Should 2.x not get make it into Squeeze
>> then we are very likely supplying a backport.
> Sorry, I'm a little confused here. Wheezy is currently in freeze,
> so Squeeze will never get 2.x tree except by backport...

My fault. Of course I meant 'wheezy'. I shouldn't reply to emails when
I'm in a hurry.

> And since Alex has confirmed that backports can only be created
> from testing packages, we would need to wait for Wheezy to be
> released, then for the 2.x tree to be accepted into testing, before
> we can being to backport for both Squeeze and Wheezy, correct?

Right. In the current state of wheezy/testing we cannot do much.

>> Do you volunteer maintaining the backport throughout the entire
>> Squeeze release term and provide timely updates and security
>> fixes? Because that's the challenge: not uploading once but
>> staying focused.
> Million-dollar question there :) In my personal time I develop
> small apps on Ubuntu so I have some experience with the PPA
> system, but obviously that is a world away from being an official
> Debian maintainer. I created this backport since we are very much a
> debian shop, I think I could show my bosses how it is our best
> interests as well that I keep it up-to-date for us as well as the
> community at large, but the final decision would be theirs if I
> were to be a maintainer on company time.

To be honest Dmitry and I plan to provide timely backports of the
"testing" packages anyway. Back in the dark ages (when I managed the
package alone) backporting was really painful. But the extra step of
providing a backport should be easy nowadays and we can surely do
that. Most of our work would be wasted anyway if we just built
packages for "sid" or "testing" that noone would care about. I can't
really imagine people using a 1.8 package in 2015. Providing backports
is much more rewarding. Especially considering that Zabbix 2.0 might
not make it into "Wheezy" or get removed from Debian altogether. Then
we could either provide 2.0 backports for everyone to use or build
backports and keep them in a PPA or other private repository if Debian
would drop the package. This uncertainty and the trouble with
backporting security updates in 1.8 lead me to reducig my engagement
in package maintenance of Zabbix. I know that Dmitry hates me for my
laziness here and he's right. :(


Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/


Reply to: