Re: Upcoming FTPMaster meeting
On 2011-02-15, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting the use of -backports here, I was referring to
> backported features in the general sense of the term.
I know. -backports would've been the "easy" way out, though. But obviously a
no-go for official infrastructure.
> Of course I'm not taking it for granted that you would accept these packages
> into squeeze and intended to ask you if this would be ok, once there were
> actual patches to be considered. But since you're here: would targeted
> patches to backport support for :any/:native be ok for a stable update? :-)
Is this just about parsing/accepting them or also more intrusive dependency
analysis? For basic parsing support that might be ok if the patch is sanely
reviewable and guaranteed not to cause regressions. No guarantees about
Most of the support work should happen with the chroot apt and dpkg I guess,
to speed this up.
[*] It's also a bit of cheating if we allow such updates into stable.
Why didn't we add other compression formats and other source formats to
dpkg in stable then; we did claim that you need to wait a cycle for them to
be used. I don't want that can of worms to be opened.