Re: [php-maint] Backport requirements exception for some packages (php5)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi Ondřej,
Am 16.12.2013 15:10, schrieb Ondřej Surý:
> This seems to be said with really authoritative tone. Could we at
> least discuss this in the wider audience, so it doesn't feel like
> the single developer against the Debian backports overlords?
Then, please, be more patient and slow down the discussion. The
mailing list debian-backports@l.d.o is usually low volume. So I guess
several readers that could contribute to the discussion don't read
their mails more often than e.g. once a day.
Besides that I tend to agree with Alexander Wirt. The policy behind
Debian backports has been like it is for very good *reasons*. Just
because several users out there appreciate Debian (as e.g. provided in
the stable releases) does not mean they understand how Debian works.
And just because some users out there want a bleeding edge version
(i.e. the latest point release of PHP 5.4.x) does not mean they want
us to change how Debian works.
By requesting an exception from the backport requirements, you're
essentially challenging them. This is not a bad thing in itself, but
doing so with the argument "the users need the backport" does not
exactly emphasize that you familiarized yourself with the Debian
backport requirements.
If you really want to provide PHP 5.4.x in wheezy-backports, then you
should have uploaded PHP 5.5.x to experimental in the first place, not
unstable/testing. This way you would have PHP 5.4.x ready in
unstable/testing, and the packages backported from testing could get
accepted in wheezy-backports by the well-known rules.
Just my 2¢...
Cheers,
Micha
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=59Gm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: