Re: How to make Debian more attractive for users, was: Re: The number of popcon.debian.org-submissions is falling
Paul Wise writes ("Re: How to make Debian more attractive for users, was: Re: The number of popcon.debian.org-submissions is falling"):
> binNMU style backports where a maintainer requests an auto-backport
> and the backports team schedules it? That would be nice.
That would be fantastic and deal with a large proportion of the
problem - the part where currently are doing needless manual work of
one kind or another (whether it's doing a private rebuild, or a manual
backports upload).
What about security support for backports ? The approach used in
testing is mostly "just run faster" and won't do for backports.
> Automatically rebuild packages from testing that don't have their
> dependencies satisfied in stable but do have their build-dependencies
> satisfied? That might be useful, probably that is dependent on
> integrating backports.org closer. I would wonder how many packages
> would fail due to improper or missing versioning information though.
Also, the dependencies in testing are often overly strict in that they
suggest the package won't build on stable even though in fact it
will. You can sometimes even leave out whole libraries and the
upstream build system will leave out those features.
> Having d-i add backports.org to sources.list (and set good pinning)
> could be another thing to look at.
I think the key thing is not to upgrade packages to the backports
version without the user initiating it for each package (and perhaps
its dependencies). Since they won't be as well-tested.
> > * Metaphorical speaking: we should give Debian a phone number. And I
> > mean full-time or at least half-time employees. With so many people
> > unemployed these days, I even feel we have the duty to think about
> > creating jobs.
>
> That is probably part of the DPL's role? Could clarify what you are
> proposing here?
This should be a separate thread.
Ian.
Reply to: