Re: Weakening "from testing" requierement
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 12:25:39PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I would like to discuss the idea in the subject.
Bad idea.
> The currently defined rules say that the package shall only be
> backported from Testing.
Yes; the idea being that once testing becomes stable, you can easily
upgrade from your now-oldstable-with-backports to the new stable.
That has the possibility to break if you allow versions into
stable-backports that are more recent than what's in testing (and
similarly, if you allow versions into oldstable-backports that aren't in
stable).
> However, Testing mutated to Frozen ATM.
> Any my gut feeling says that this is going to be like the Wheezy freeze
I don't think it's reasonable to expect that Debian can base its
policies on someone's gut feeling. Even so, my gut feeling is that we're
actually pretty close to release, barring a few RC bugs that need
fixing.
> (or even like the infamous Woody freeze that "never ended" and you ended
> up with 1.5 years old upstream versions released as "stable", ROTFL).
Even so, that's Debian's policy. Rather than laughing about it, you
might help fix the outstanding RC bugs? You *are* a Debian developer,
after all.
> Therefore, can we probably relax that basic rule of backporting and
> allow packages to satisfy fewer requirements? Something like:
>
> * Package X has to be in Sid for min. 20 days without any new upstream specific bug repors
> * Package revision X-Y has been in Sid for min. 10 days without new packaging related bug reports
None of that helps with the above issue of "ensuring upgrades can still
happen".
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Reply to: