Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

To: Alexander Wirt <debian-backports@lists.debian.org>
Cc: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Ceph Packaging Team <team+ceph@tracker.debian.org>
Subject: Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
From: Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:30:06 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 1c813d1feaf1b60c94d0eb4212379d6d@bzed.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] E1nAqiX-000ARg-4g@fasolo.debian.org>
References: <[🔎] E1nAqiX-000ARg-4g@fasolo.debian.org>

On 2022-01-21 11:00, Alexander Wirt wrote:

Rejected until those general questions on the backports ml are solved.


Please explain which questions you are talking about, so far I was not
able to find a reason why there should not be a backport.

Having a backport in general and using it as upgrade path are
completely unrelated things.

--
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
  - From: Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de>

References:
- ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
  - From: Alexander Wirt <debian-backports@lists.debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Next by Date: Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Previous by thread: Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Next by thread: Re: ceph_16.2.7+ds-4~bpo11+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread