Re: Should fast-evolving packages be backports-only?
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On 2014-11-11 15:30, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > However, candidate packages due to reason (c) above really are a problem,
> > IMHO they shouldn't be in stable in the first place.
> Does this mean that I should ask for the removal of youtube-dl from testing?
I don't think youtube-dl is in reason (c), if anything it would be in (b).
> from many sites, the target sites are moving too fast (that's the nature
> of the web) and there's no chance that I will be hunting minimal patches
> to fix breakage of multiple sites, as upstream generally refactors the
> whole thing constantly and as multiple sites may get broken, the pile of
> patches would sometimes be larger than the code to extract data from
> some simpler sites.
Well, yeah, that could be a problem, as that much change can easily
I'd ask the release managers if they're OK with the heavy use of
stable-updates for this.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot