Re: Jessie Freeze and Backports Uploads
Hi again!
* Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> [2014-11-16 09:20:36 CET]:
> wheezy-backports will be switched to a policy queue just like we have
> it with squeeze-backports so that updates there need to get approved
> by the team to reduce the possibility of mistaken uploads.
Because I was approached that it doesn't seem to have been clear
enough: wheezy-backports upload are now ending in a policy queue which
means that they need to get approved by the team -- manually. So if you
upload to wheezy-backports these days it means that the backports team
does have to approve every single upload before they end in the
wheezy-backports archive. I'm uncertain how I can formulate that even
clearer, and I hope that this mail helps to get the people understand
what I wrote who missed it in the first mail.
> The question might pop up, when will wheezy-backports-sloppy and
> jessie-backports get opened.
For this there is also a little bit of news: The archive parts are
there already. This does NOT mean that they are up for uploads already.
The buildd network does still need to set up the chroots which is a
tedious job, and has to get done by people who are also deeply involved
in the release process and thus quite stressed out with that already, so
they rather prefer to spend their time on getting jessie out. :)
> ... and we are currently still discussing whether and if how we can
> get rid of the superfluous trailing 0 to be able to use ~bpo8 als
> suffix without running into any upgrade issues.
Personally I still think we should do this. This means the following:
| Short table for suggested overview:
|
| Upload to | used version suffix
| -------------------------+-----------------------
| wheezy-backports | ~bpo70+1
| wheezy-backports-sloppy | ~bpo7+1
| jessie-backports | ~bpo8+1
I really hope that we won't have too many mistakes happening for
wheezy-backports-sloppy uploads. We do not want to hand-approve every
single upload there, even if the amount is expected to be rather low.
We hope that we can catch it for uploaders to that suite on first
upload. I will try to track these version differences, and I hope that
we manage to get less wrong versioned packages than we got for
wheezy-backports:
http://backports.debian.org/wheezy-backports/wrongversion/
Speaking about wheezy-backports: Expect a fair amount of removals from
that suite. There were packages uploaded to it that aren't even
available in unstable anymore, thus only living in wheezy-backports:
http://backports.debian.org/wheezy-backports/NA/
I can understand that someone wants to see some packages which later
turn out to not find a proper maintainer for unstable (though I wonder
why the backporter wouldn't be interested in maintaining the package in
unstable, if it's not only a dependency of a different package ...).
But mistakes happen, and we can't support a package that only lives in
backports, that is not what backports is about. I'll try to contact the
uploaders of these packages in the next days to find out what to do with
them, and if removal is the way to go I'll write it to the
debian-backports-announce mailinglist.
Thanks for all your help in making the backports service useful,
Rhonda
--
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
Reply to: