Re: A new Priority level, ‘backports’ ? (Re: unstable/testing/[pending/frozen/]stable)
> the addition of new suites has the disadvantage of dispersing our userbase.
> Here is a proposition that conserves the current flow of package migration for
> packages released in Stable, and that makes Testing the meeting point for all
> the packages.
> We could introduce a new priority level, ‘backports’, with the following
This whole thing does not make sense at all. Priority is the wrong knob.
> This priority level would be lower than ‘extra’. Higher levels would not be
> allowed to depend nor build-depend on packages of priority ‘backports’. Source
> packages would not be allowed to contain a mixture binary packages containing
> ‘backports’ level and higher priorities.
> These packages would not be released in Stable, but would be uploaded to
> Unstable and migrate in Testing as usual, with the exception that they would
> not be affected by a freeze. They could be removed by default from Testing in
> case they block a transition.
> As the name indicates, the packages which prove their stability in Testing
> (and only them, as in the current backports rules) would be backported in
> backports.debian.org. The backports would be prepared by the maintainers
> themselves (this would open a way to the use of the BTS) and would be the final
> distribution medium for Stable users.
So what backports "priority" actually says is "my package is such a
bullshit that I don't want it ever released, but I am fine with putting
burden on the people keeping backports running instead". I think we have
a way already dealing with this: Don't upload them.
'To Start Press Any Key'. Where's the ANY key?