On Thursday 12 November 2015 22:45:38 Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > 1) You probably remember that Wheezy did not have Zabbix which did not
> > make it into oldstable release before freeze. Then release team
> > recommended to maintain Zabbix in backports so I did and Wheezy had
> > Zabbix only form backports. Why am I reminding about that? Because it is
> > the same 2.2.x LTS branch that is in Jessie and which I want to upload
> > to backports.
> Releaseteam is not in a position to decide that. And to be honest I am
> shocked that that was the case. If you would have asked, you would have
> earned the same answer and a removal.
It was with full compliance with backporting policy. Zabbix was in "testing"
back then (it was just missing from "stable").
> I think the whole process of unstable->testing
> migration is a relevant part of backports as I see it.
> [...]
> No. Its also that we want versions in backports that are used outside of
> backports too. We really don't want to backports carries stuff that isn't
> available elsewhere. And to be honest, given the experience of the last
> years we think should handle those cases even more strict as they are at
> the moment.
Understood, thank you for explaining.
> > Please let me know if I've missed a Debian facility allowing to deliver
> > conservative upstream stable releases to users of current "stable"
> > without
> > replacing software that were frozen in stable. I thought that backports
> > is a perfect facility for that...
>
> such ja facility is missing at the moment, but backports is not meaned as
> such.
Do we have anything on road map to cover this gap?
I've never thought about sloppy backport before so I wonder when it might
become available?
Thanks.
--
Best wishes,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride
it, but in the end; there it is.
-- Winston Churchill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.