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

Re: Purpose and policy of the future backports.debian.org.



Alexander Wirt wrote:
> I'm strongly against that. I want packages properly tested and in your own
> interest you should wait for testing migration of your packages. (of course
> there can be exception, but not in general). 
> 
> I want well tested packages in bpo (which means tested by users, not
> uploaders). 

Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but, it seems to me that relying
on a package propigating to testing doesn't ensure that a build of it
for backports is particularly well tested. The two are two entirely
different builds targeted at two entirely different systems.

I've run unstable and testing on servers for ages. Now that I have some
recent months of experience using backports, and a lesser amount of
experience providing a couple, my level of trust that a given backport
will be well-tested and free of integration problems is somewhere
between my trust in testing and my (lack of) trust in unstable.

Is anything being  done to push that assurance level closer to that of
testing, or ideally, closer to that of stable? For example, are there
any plans to only allow a package into bpo proper after the *backport*
has received testing-like aging in a bpo-unstable?

-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: