Re: Creating a new named official debian repository for OpenStack backports (Uploading all of OpenStack to backports)
Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:
> On 10/03/14 at 22:27 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/09/2014 12:51 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> > 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?
>>
>> Actually, now that you make me think about it, I know that FTP masters
>> have already implemented creating "any" new named repository. So I'm
>> adding them in the loop to ask for it.
>>
>> So, dear FTP masters, would it be possible for you to create some new
>> repositories for OpenStack? I would need:
>> - wheezy-havana
>> - wheezy-icehouse
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm very much in favor of providing up-to-date OpenStack packages to
> users of wheezy. The fact that the official OpenStack documentation for
> Debian points to an unofficial repository is quite sad.
>
> However, I'm not sure I understand what problems would be solved by
> using wheezy-havana, wheezy-icehouse, etc. instead of just plainly
> wheezy-backports?
I agree with Lucas here. Unless the backports ftpmasters have specific
concerns (they did not comment until now). I would prefer to have this
in debian-backports instead of it's own repository.
The only "problem" that could be solved is to lift the requirement that
packages have to enter testing before going into backports. But to me
this is actually a feature lacking form the current unofficial
repository.
Gaudenz
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: