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

Re: Backports service becoming official

On 22/09/10 13:53, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Thinking about it, what we _conceptually_ need is pretty simple: a
> mechanism to declare who is the Maintainer of the bpo package and
> enforce its declaration. The responsibility of bpo maintenance will be
> on the declared bpo maintainer. If the default maintainer wants to be
> the bpo maintainer too, fine; if someone else wants to, fine too. One
> way to do that would be to require setting new values for
> Maintainer/Uploaders, possibly backing up the default values to
> Orig-{Maintainer,Uploaders} [1]. Is there any reason *not* to do that?

Since people are basically arguing about the bug traffic, maybe require
a Bugs: field when doing a NMU to backports?
Unfortunately, this doesn't help when the faulty backport is a library
which causes another binary to fail.

Felipe Sateler

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: