Re: Maintaining intermediary versions in *-backports
Hi,
* Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> [2017-05-24 12:49:33 CEST]:
> 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.
>
> Dear backport maintainers, what are your replies to this?
>
> I understand what you expect from me (always backport the latest package from
> testing, possibly unstable for security updates that will shortly migrate
> to testing anyway). But this is stricter than what you have written down,
> and I don't see any benefits on enforcing your stricter version.
No, it's not stricter than what is written down. I'm sorry, this has
gotten pointed out to you. You can disagree with reading it that way,
and you (again) left out part of the explenation of the exception (which
reads to take it directly from unstable instead of waiting for testing
moving over). As long as you are unwilling to acknowledge that I fear
we won't be able to have any useful discussion on that.
I also find it disturbing that you start a new thread out of that with
the same mistaken argument that was already pointed out to you (not by
me or formorer, actually) and again leave out that crucial part (for an
argument's sake?)
> I care deeply about this and would like a sane discussion, please.
Then I urge you deeply to engage in one yourself too and don't dismiss
arguments that don't follow your wishes and call them a diversion.
> If the topic comes every so often as you seem to point, maybe there's
> an important use case that we should try to cover... and as long as we
> don't have working PPA, it's quite natural for maintainers to want to
> use stable-backports in that way.
See, and here actually is a very good argument to *NOT* use it that
way. The lack of existing bikesheds/PPAs so far shouldn't be an
argument to change the rules. When they finally will happen it would
mean we should change them back so that people know what they can expect
from backports. Right now, with your approach of ignoring the rules,
people don't know what to expect, which I doubt is the better approach
to anything. "backports might contain whatever someone deems useful,
but no clue where it comes from and how it's maintained" is not a useful
suggestion in my opinion.
The website has right on the front page a very clear statement on that
expectations:
,-----------------> https://backports.debian.org/ <-----------------
| Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called
| "testing"), adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable. [...]
| (In a few cases, usually for security updates, backports are also
| created from the Debian unstable distribution.)"
`-----------------> https://backports.debian.org/ <-----------------
What you are doing here does under no twisting of words or different
interpretation of that fall under that.
Yes, it comes up every now and then, and I see the wish for that to
change, but that doesn't give anyone the justification to simply ignore
it and do whatever they like without any communication about that
whatsoever. That simply does. not. work. At all.
I consider the case closed unless something new is brought up. We are
turning in circles. People actively working against that guideline that
they requested upload rights for are actively ignoring the rules under
which they requested the upload rights in the first place, and starting
to argue after pointing that out is raising a huge trust issue.
Having a proper discussion means to not start to ignore the current
system and then start an argument how unfair you feel treated.
Enjoy,
Rhonda
--
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
Reply to: