Re: Bugs in Backported Packages
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:48:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 04:18:48PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Doing a quick look at the backports mailing list archive, there are less
> > than 10 bugs reported per month on average. That is for hundreds of
> > packages. Doing some fuzzy math, if you have a package that got
> > backported, you may see an additional 10/100 = 0.1 bug reports per
> > month (or roughly one bug per year). I don't see how that could be
> > remotely considered overburdensome.
> A single package I'm comaintainer of that has a backports.org backport has
> received at least 12 bug reports to the BTS over the past year referencing
> bpo versions (not counting any that might have been retargeted using
> found/notfound after being filed). The reason there are few bug reports on
> the mailing list is because these *already* come to the BTS.
> For the package in question, the backports are done by a fellow
> comaintainer, so I'm not complaining about the bug traffic; but that doesn't
> mean it's *right* for that traffic to be going to the BTS by default.
> > Backports has now been declared "officially" supported by the project
> > as a whole. That made it the collective responsibility of all
> > Debian Developers whether or not individuals in particular like it or
> > not.
So you're saying that a move to debian.org actually does not make it
officially part of Debian (even though a lot of blogs are claiming just
that)? If that's the case then I agree that there is no collective
responsibility. That's good since it eliminates what was going to be a
significant additional burden for the security team.
What would be required to finally declare it "officially" supported? A