On Sun, 10 Jan 2016, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 10 janvier 2016 17:01 +0100, Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> : > > >> > The .deb of ikiwiki in testing/unstable is installable on stable, and I > >> > intend to keep that true (it doesn't contain any compiled code, so there > >> > are no ABI issues). My own "production" ikiwiki installation uses > >> > ikiwiki from unstable on an otherwise stable/backports system, and I > >> > test new ikiwiki versions that way before uploading them to unstable. > >> > > >> > My understanding had been that the backports ftp-masters prefer not to > >> > have rebuilt software included in backports if the .deb in testing could > >> > just have been installed on stable without recompilation, which is true > >> > here. > >> > >> Okay. If that's the policy then a backport would indeed be > >> inappropriate. > > Thats a guideline, not a strict policy. If the package is interesting enough, > > we will happily accept it in backports. I would say ikiwiki is one of > > them. > > This is an odd guideline. How should such a package be installed? By > adding a testing sources.list and taking the risk of pulling unwanted > dependencies from testing (unless the user is comfortable with pining)? > Manually retrieving the .deb and installing it with dpkg (how to get > updates)? How a user would know if a package from testing is suitable to > use in stable? it it is some obscure game, we won't accept it. Been there, done that. Alex
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature