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

Re: Packages without long term stable releases



On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:46:36AM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:

> I think the success of our stable releases depends on the continued
> assessments of each and every maintainer. I don't believe you will find
> enough developers and maintainers who are willing to evaluate all
> packages in the archive. Who will make the decision if a package is ok
> for stable or not?

I agree. I meant to say that I'd like the maintainer to explicitly
state, on package upload, whether that version is suitable for
testing/stable.

> In my opinion the current mechanisms already work
> pretty well and the users are the best indicators if a package is suited
> for stable or not. If a package cannot be supported in stable, I
> wouldn't want it in testing either which I use for the same reasons as
> you do.

...and to have a suite, like testing, that:

 - does not transition to stable, and is intended to be used as is
 - contains anything that enter testing
 - also contains the packages that would enter testing but do not
   because they are not intended for it

> So my thoughts in a nutshell. Always talk to upstream before you package
> the software, if you are unsure about the suitability for stable. Don't
> upload the software if it can't be maintained in stable. Respect the
> wishes of upstreams and remove the package (the xscreensaver case), if
> they don't understand that there is no technical reason for warning
> users about "old software", if it is not broken.

100% agree.

> I think such packages would be better suited for PPAs or bikesheds.

I somehow expect there to be a significant amount of such software that
either ended up in stable by mistake, or isn't entering Debian because
of stable. Such software could fit in the kinds of power-user personal
systems that currently get addressed by constanly staying on testing.
and a testing-like transition workflow.

I see value in having it in a single suite, because it can be tested for
consistency as a whole, instead of risking of having different behaviour
according to what combinations of different PPAs are added to a system.


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: