Re: jlapack_0.8~dfsg-3~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:31:55AM +0200, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> > > > So how can I backport my final target beast-mcmc to Jessie (main) if the
> > > > preconditions are only residing in contrib?
> > >
> > > You could move beast-mcmc back to contrib.
>
> For me that would be a step backwards since I was litterally fighting to
> get a free beast-mcmc for 5 years.
>
> > > But I have a problem with
> > > non-change backports (no idea what rhonda is thinking about it).
> >
> > Frankly spoken, I think it makes sense when the backported aim is
> > beast-mcmc which now sits in main to have those toolchain changes happen
> > in backports, too. Yes, it's a bit of a corner case, but I think it is
> > part of our social contract here, putting the emphasis on free software
> > as our priority.
>
> +1
>
> > Though, what I'm absolutely *not* fine with is that this wasn't brought
> > up beforehand and that we are expected to figure that out on our own.
>
> Sorry, my fault.
>
> > I always stated clearly that we are willing to listen to reasoning and
> > discuss things, and not have things dumped on us to stay here puzzled
> > not knowing what's going on and why something is done out of the
> > ordinary.
>
> May be I have not yet fully understood all the checks you are doing,
> specifically I was not aware of the "no relevant changes" check.
People not reading the contribution document is the usual problem.
Backports is about features. Which is something that was stated several
times in several places.
Alex
Reply to: