Hi,
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 02:38:32PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 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.
+1 to everything.
Hauke
--
.''`. Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de
: :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org
`. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com
`- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature