Hi Alex, On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 07:09:34AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:40:02PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > > > > > > > No, I wouldn't expect that. > > > LTS Team is not involved in backports. And old-old-stable backports doesn't > > > exist. > > > > I swear I read a thread about how the expectation is that a backporter > > is not responsible for continuing to maintain his/her bpos in the part > > of the LTS lifecycle after +2 is released...but how the LTS team would > > if they felt the bpo was important. Maybe I missed the end of that > > discussion? Was it resolved that backports become unmaintained when > > old-stable becomes old-old-stable? > We had an experiment where backporters were responsible for old-old-stable-backports > too. It didn't worked well and we decided to stop support for old-old-stable > backports with the release of stretch [1]. > > Alex > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/06/msg00055.html Thank you for the link! "Expect it to get removed from the mirrors and moved to archive in the near future" clears things up unambiguously. Sorry I missed this announcement, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature