On Sunday 29 June 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > FWIW I was the one asking the removal: upstream has a fix that is > backportable, not trivially, but that is. And there is openntpd that is > a drop in replacement for most desktop users (and I assume that testing > users aren't really servers, that would need the additionnal features > ntp provides and openntpd has not). Here is my rationale. And here I was thinking that testing was supposed to be "the next stable", and that "the next stable" would have full support for both desktops and servers. Guess I've missed some announcements. Sorry, but this whole rationale makes absolutely no sense to me. If a new upstream version is needed to fix an issue, how does kicking the current version out of testing help with that effort? How does it help existing users of ntp in testing, or people installing new testing systems that would like to use ntp? I also really hope you're not seriously going to argue that ntp is a random, unpopular "fringe" package. And again in this case there _was_ a reaction from the maintainer in the BR explicitly saying how he intended to handle the issue: by waiting for a new upstream release that would make it possible to trivially fix the issue. Apparently the release team was not willing to wait for that, which can be defended. But instead of discussing that with the maintainer in the BR, the package was just kicked out. The response from the maintainers in this case has been excellent (again): looks like they have made the effort to backport the upstream change needed to fix the issue. But I seriously doubt that needed to be forced in this way. Again, the only things you (the release team) have managed to achieve with this are: - cosmetically improving the RC stats for testing - annoying developers and users Neither of which is any help in getting Debian closer to releasing Lenny.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.