Re: Fwd: jessie backport for Wordpress

[Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:16:28AM +0200, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> 
> > come to debian, and the wordpress support policy is limited to the last 
> > release, IMHO, it makes sense to backport it to jessie. Also, I'd really 
> > like to have the current wordpress version (or pretty close), so a backport 
> > seems appropriate for me.
> 
>  The last sentece here is the *ONLY* reason you should consider doing a
> backport for.  The whole discussion (on the backports-team list before)
> didn't even contain that sentence, so I'm very disturbed by your
> approach which sounds like you have a big misunderstanding about what
> backports is about and for.
> 
>  Please let me know how you want to address the security issues for
> stable before I consider having wordpress for backports approved.  This
> is crucial to me for understanding on how you plan to maintain and take
> care of the package in the long run.

No, sorry, it's not about that only. The discussion turned like that in the
backports-team ML because I asked for a BSA and gave security stuff. But the
reasoning, and my mail to this list, should have been totally different, you are
right.

The main reason, I guess, is the one I just said to Holger (c&p from that mail):

	I've been using wordpress in wheezy and there were tons of plugins not
	supported and tons of plugins that, although they worked, didn't fix
	bugs for such old WP versions. Or even not look at it, just said: "That
	WP version is not supported, try to reproduce with a X version".
	
	And it's a shame, but plugins are important in my case :-/. So, if I can
	always have an updated WP version, it's really nice.


Also, we are using a custom WP theme and the designer hated me for having such
an outdated WP version. But that's not as bad as not being able to use tons of
plugins.

Right now the stable version is not outdated, but it eventually will and the
site designer and people using it really prefer newer WP versions for plugins
mostly (but some functionality too).


> 
>  I can understand that this can (and will) come across pretty hard to
> you.  It's not meant harsh though and not to shut down your engagement,
> but please understand what backports is for and don't abuse it.

No problem :)




Thanks a lot,
Rodrigo