Hello Raphael, On 05/24/2017 09:15 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 24 May 2017, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> An alternative idea would be to have two separate (source) packages in >> sid: django and django-lts. Then django-lts could be put into backports >> and so maintained according to the backport policy. > > I don't really like the idea of a separate source package, it means more > security work, a lot of headaches for dependencies, upgrades, etc. I cannot follow here. Current state is: - sid/testing has latest version (including security work) - jessie-backports has latest LTS (including security work) With my model that would be: - sid/testing has both, latest version and latest LTS (including security) - jessie-backports strictly follows django-lts and so shouldn't be much of a headache. So the only downside I see is that there might be differences between django-lts in sid/testing and django-lts in backports. For some packages it is possible to not have any differences, not sure how the situation is in this case. Do I miss something? > In my opinion, the only good solution is the following: > - maintain only LTS versions in unstable/testing > - keep non-LTS versions in experimental > > Most of the (bigger) reverse dependencies of Django are interested in LTS > versions (or are at least expected to work with the latest LTS version). So packages are free to depend on django (i.e. latest version) or django-lts or django | django-lts. Sounds flexible and great. (Ok, on the other hand more chances to make something wrong.) Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature