On Monday, 4 June 2018 4:44:52 PM AEST Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Then we agree to disagree. We don't want backports that are not in testing.
I can't think of a better example of a package that worth exception for "not-
in-testing" rule. Can you be convinced? Have you ever granted such exception
for non-security related reason?
Of course you know that sometimes package can not be in testing due to
library transitions or removals. "not-in-testing" should be less strict and
reasonable exceptions should be possible to get.
Your objection to backporting Litecoin is not reasonable because it makes no
sense.
Backports are not the same as "stable" - if they were the same then there
would be no need for backports. If "not-in-testing" rule is for quality
purposes then it should be possible so emulate it by artificial delay between
upload to "unstable" and upload to backports. Do you have a particular
concern why you think "not-in-testing" rule should be _always_ applicable to
backports?
--
Best wishes,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Truth — Something somehow discreditable to someone.
-- H. L. Mencken, 1949
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.