Re: Please allow latest qtl to be part of lenny
> Luk Claes wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, too much to review, not unblocked. If an outdated version is not
> > really useful, it might be better to not include the package into a
> > stable release and provide backports?
Le Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:24:42PM +0200, Steffen Moeller a écrit :
>
> Wether you call it backports or volatile, you are suggesting to split
> Debian-Med and Debian-Science from the main distribution, something that
> we are all strongly working against, in order to strengthen the distribution
> as a whole. I am CCing to Debian-Med to hear what they say. My personal opinion
> is to just go for it because it is where the field is. Should the field be doing
> crap, then so be it, it is not Debian's fault. Since R-qtl is an R package,
> it cannot do any damage to Debian as a whole and render stable unstable
> in any way.
Hi all,
I agree with the implicit opinion of Steffen that teams should be given
more responsability for "leaf packages", but anyway, we are so close to
the release that it is not the best time to discuss how to acheive this
empowerment. When backports will be an official Debian service, it may
make more sense to release most scientific packages only as backports.
This would decrease the workload of both teams, while keeping the Debian
Med a 100 % Debian project.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: