Re: Backports service becoming official
Hi,
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
> time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
> personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
> normal packages ("normal" backport maintainer = maintainer of the
> package in unstable).
>
> Of course, that doesn't remove the possibility for people to upload NMU
> backports when the maintainer is not responsive/interested in providing
> a backport. But then the normal rules of NMUs should apply (in
> particular, the NMUer must not change the Maintainer field, and should
> monitor the bugs of the package).
Well, I'm not sure NMU versioning would apply but +1 in general. Anyone
providing a backport is de-facto a co-maintainer of the package and should
subscribe to the PTS of the package. That way he would also be informed of
security bugs that need to be investigated for his backport.
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
>
> > Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
> > time to reconsider
>
> Some other possibilities;
> Move *-backports (and *-volatile) into the main archive like they are in Ubuntu.
>
> Merge the backports website into www.debian.org or wiki.debian.org.
+1 as well, I always thought that was the plan since the beginning. It's just a new
suite and it would benefit from the default mirror network. And 500
more packages are not going to make a difference on the current mirrors
IMO.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer ◈ [Flattr=20693]
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
Reply to: