On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 11:19:02 +0100 Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> wrote: (sorry, missed the CC: list in error) > > > Right, but that's for stretch where the sysadmin will be clearly > > > be more aware of and/or even looking for issues. I don't want to > > > break existing systems right now. > > > So how are packages using gunicorn to handle support for both > > stretch and jessie-backports? Packages in jessie can't be changed, > > so changes need to take place in backports to prepare for > > stretch. > > > Adding packages from backports should be about preparing for the > > next stable release. > > I completely understand that and strongly agree, but *weighed up > against* breaking existing stable-based systems I relaly feel it the > worst of two bad options to upload it to backports. > > I mean, I know I have deployed systems that--if they were to blindly > upgrade from backports after such an upload--would have a broken > system! and just how is python-django 1.8 from backports any different? I had a number of users reporting broken systems because the package using django wasn't ready for 1.8 at the time. The only fix is to have a version in backports which works with packages in stretch to allow those to be backported as well. That's what backports is supposed to provide. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpoALQBFmOrT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature