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

Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports

>  - Should the package begin to migrate to testing again, it must
>    be moved to stable-backports.
>  - Using the same ~bpo version namespace

Both of these poitns are there to *not* change anything about backports.
If a package stops qualifying for -volatile, and starts qualifying for
-backports, it's under the backports realm again. I consider this very
important so it is very clear for maintainers what -volatile is for - in
particular, *not* for bypassing -backports limitations.

The sharing of the version namespace is partially a direct consequence of
the previous point.

>  - "treat it as part of backports", which I assume means that
>    backports users would automatically consume this repo

No. I see where the misunderstanding comes from - that's not what I was
intending to say.

-colatile is intended to be a compelte separate suite, that users can
add to their sources.list separately (if they do, they also need to add
the regular -backports, however). The rest of what I meant as "treat as
part of" is adhering to the same rules, standards, etc., and re-using
existing infrastructure like the NEW queue due to that. Also to ensure
that the qualification of packages for either -backports or -volatile is
clear and inforced.

>  - new binary uploads to volatile have to undergo the
>    same NEW queue as backports

This as about sharing resources and enforcing the same rules (except for
source and target suites).

The proposal is still possible without sharing the same NEW queue, but
the first two points are a major concept ensuring that it will work. It
will not work as well when removing them.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: