On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 16:23 +0100, Alex ARNAUD wrote: > Le 10/01/2021 à 21:05, Luca Boccassi a écrit : > > > What deadlines did you have in mind? Are you intending to offer this as a > > > "first-class citizen" option in bullseye? When dbus-broker has only been > > > in the archive for two days, that doesn't seem like very much testing > > > to have confidence that it will be suitable to provide important system > > > services through the 3 year lifetime of bullseye. > > > > I think it's fine as an optional package that users have to opt-in > > for. Nothing depends on it, so it won't be installed by default > > anywhere. Also there's no config to do to switch - install or > > uninstall. > > > > Also there's no difference to what Fedora shipped for a couple of > > years now - we got no patches, special build flags or anything. So > > it's good enough to be in bullseye in my view. > I'm not a Debian developer nor a Debian maintainer but I think I see what Simon said. People trust us to provide working packages for which we had enough testing. > > A possible compromise would be to have it landed to Sid/Unstable, blocking testing migration, not shipping it for Debian 11, trying it in testing after Debian 11 release then upload it to bullseye-backports after 3 months in testing if the results are successful. Hi, I understand the point of view, but given the release is 6+ months away, there's all the time in the world to have it tested. And if we find something that for whatever reason is completely broken in Debian but works completely fine in Fedora/Yocto/etc then we can simply remove it from testing. Nothing depends on it, so unless I'm missing something, there's no extra cost involved as far as I can see. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part