Re: backports

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 09:08:56PM +0200, Steffen Möller a écrit :
> 
> how do you feel towards the idea that with the advent of backports as an
> official service of the distribution, we should use that in routine for the
> more frequently updated tools? In science, there is rarely (i.e. except for
> comparisons or for continuity) the need to use an older version, and then
> snapshot.debian.org comes to a rescue. And then there are these annoying
> cases when a new upstream release just fails to miss the freeze.
> 
> Prime candidates IMHO are the autodocktools, gromacs, ... well ... almost
> anything in debian-science and debian-med, really. I would then even opt to
> take the autodocktools out of the main distribution towards an appearance in
> backports and testing only.
> 
> Comments welcome.

Hi Steffen,

I am also thinking more and more that we could send to Stable only the packages
that have a real stable upstream release and a long-term commitment to maintain
it, and to publish the rest as backports.

However, when I asked the backports maintainers about what software they would
consider in backports.debian.org (before the move), their answer gave me the
impression that uploading fast-changing software there would be a misuse of
their service. Here is a link to the discussion.

http://lists.debian.org/20100630015842.GA7360@kunpuu.plessy.org

One of the problems is that backported packages should be in testing, and
packages in testing should be aimed at stable releases. This makes updating a
backport as difficult as updating Testing during a freeze.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan