Tollef Fog Heen escreveu isso aí: > ]] Antonio Terceiro > > > The problem with making non-transitioned packages NMU-able is that the > > transition is quite invasive for each package. I've added a ack for that > > in the draft. > > What's the other alternatives? Removing the package isn't less > invasive. Blocking transition to testing is slightly less invasive, but > we don't want to end up with packages that languish in unstable forever > either. Doing nothing is less invasive, but does not get us to where we > want to be. :-) Sure. It just feels like transitioning a Ruby package looks much more like hijacking it than with doing an NMU. :-) I am absolutely *not* arguing in favor of doing nothing! -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature