[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On 1/21/22 15:08, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Hi,


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.

As far as I saw mira came up with the question if ceph is supportable et al. I am usually not a big fan of packages in backports where it is unclear if it can be supported over the whole backports lifetime without hassle. I therefore wanted to wait until the thread is really done.

Alex

IMO, yes, it's supportable. I have a good relation with upstream, they reply to my questions, and they are very nice to deal with. They are also very supportive of my work, and I do expect they wont let me down if I get in trouble with security patches.

Should I re-upload?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


Reply to: