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

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
> features:

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.

bye, Joerg
'To Start Press Any Key'. Where's the ANY key? 

Reply to: