Bug#881032: RFS: icecc/1.1-2~bpo9+1 NMU
On 03/02/18 14:50, Tobias Frost wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 09:40:41AM +0100, Pablo Saavedra wrote:
>> Hello Tobias, thanks for put me in the right direction on this stuff.
>>
>> After reading again the established process in [1], I understand that
>> the recommended process is a bit different than for standard sponsorship
>> requests. Probably I should send the e-mail request with
>> debian-backports@lists.debian.org in the CC and ask for review and upload.
>>
>> My intention in this case is not become a maintainer but submit my icecc
>> package backported to Jessie with the idea of to be reviewed and
>> accepted by the current maintainers. Is this right?
> [1] is quite explicit: "Please note, that you are responsible for this backport
> from the time on when it was accepted on debian-backports. This means, you have
> to keep track of the changes in unstable, update your backport when a new
> version enters testing and provide security updates when needed. If you are not
> willing or capable of doing this, you better ask someone else (e.g. on the
> mentioned mailing list) to create and maintain the backport.
>
> So if you do not want to maintain the backport, you should not approach
> the backport people for review&upload.
Pretty clear.
>
> Did you really mean Jessie above? (The RFS said it should be for Stretch...)
> Note that Jessie is old-stable. The rules are that you can only backport
> versions that are in the next release. Stretch does not have 1.1, so 1.1 cannot
> be backported to Jessie. So you will need to backport it to "jessie-sloppy"
>
My bad, I was talking about Stretch really.
>> In other case, I think I can follow your suggestion and create a
>> wishlist bug against icecc too but I'd prefer follow up the more
>> standard process.
>
> Yes, file a bug against the pacakge and ask for an backport (serverity
> wishlist). Attach the diff as patch to the BTS and wait if the maintainer picks
> it up.
OK. Thanks for your help.
Reply to: