Re: Maintaining intermediary versions in *-backports
On May 24, 2017 8:30:00 AM EDT, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 12:49 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> [ The topic here is maintaining a version X in $foo-backports when
>$foo+1
>> contains a version higher than X, eg in my case keep maintaing Django
>> 1.8.x in jessie-backports while stretch has 1.10.x ]
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> let's start a proper discussion based on facts. The other thread
>> has gotten needlessly personal. I want to start with what I said
>> in https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/05/msg00106.html
>>
>> The reason for the reject of my upload was "please take the version
>from
>> testing, not a version that never was in the archive". But the rules
>> > (https://backports.debian.org/Contribute/) say this:
>> > To guarantee an upgrade path from stable+backports to the next
>stable,
>> > the package should be in testing.
>>
>> Note the "should", it's not a "must". And my upload perfectly met the
>> criteria for that suggestion: my backported package upgrades fine to
>> the next stable.
>>
>> The policy goes further by defining exceptions:
>> > Of course there are some exceptions: Security updates.
>>
>> I initially uploaded a version that was in testing and all the
>subsequent
>> uploads I made were security updates (in the form of upstream point
>> releases).
>>
>> Honestly, I really think that I'm fully in the spirit of the backport
>> policy and that this rejection is unwarranted.
>[...]
>
>I've always understood that the exceptional cases justify backporting a
>newer version that is currently only in unstable, not an older version.
>
>I think we should have an additional exception for cases where it
>becomes impractical to backport newer versions but a maintainer is
>willing to support it with important fixes. But from what I've read,
>that doesn't seem to be the case with Django 1.10.
Other than breaking lots of user applications, no.
Upgrading from 1.7 in Jessie to 1.10 is highly likely to break user code (even if it doesn't break things in the archive).
Removal would be better. If we can't fix 1.8, we should just get rid of the backport.
Scott K
Reply to: