On Mon, 04 Jun 2018, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > 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? No, the only exception we had - for historicial reasons - were kernel and libreoffice and they don't use it anymore. > 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. We removed packages that are not in testing in the past. But however, we are not talking about a temporary thing but a permanent exception. > > 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? Because we created it like that. Backports should go the testing route and I am not willing to create an exception here and I don't think my other ftpmaster will decide different. Alex
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature