Re: Uploading all of OpenStack to backports
On 08/03/14 16:13, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/08/2014 10:01 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>>> Another issue is that it's been hard to have all packages to migrate
>>>> from Sid to testing, so in the future, I might also have such difficulty
>>>> (even though right now, it's in good shape).
>> As written above I would actually consider this a bonus over the current
>> situation as there is mostly a reason (RC bug) that these packages don't
>> enter testing. I guess that transitions shouldn't be a big problem for
>> python modules.
>
> Well, it's not only about RC bugs on the core OpenStack packages. It's
> often about indirect dependencies, which are sometimes a bit out of my
> control, unfortunately. Also, there are problems which one may face in
> Sid/Testing, but which wouldn't be an issue with backports (this happens
> many times, like with SQLAlchemy 0.8 / 0.9, for example).
>
>> I would be willing to help with the backporting effort as time permits.
>
> Cool! Thanks very much.
>
> FYI, I don't intend to work on this before I am done with packaging
> Icehouse beta 3 (which I already started uploading into Debian
> experimental). I hope to be able to finish that this coming week.
>
My feeling is that Thomas has been doing some great work with this stuff
(OpenStack, XCP, ...)
Packaging makes a connection with a wider user base. This in turn
raises the critical mass for a project. The expression "A rising tide
lifts all boats" is very applicable here: having OpenStack in backports
is good for Debian and for OpenStack
The only question is how to make this type of thing work smoothly
One other thing comes to mind: for packages that are slightly more
volatile than what the backports maintainers expect, or large
collections of packages like OpenStack, is it worthwhile having some
alternative to wheezy-backports? E.g. call it wheezy-backports-plus and
just distribute things from unstable or jessie compiled automatically on
a wheezy box?
Reply to: