Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 09:42 +0200, Stephan Suerken wrote: > mini-buildd currently has > > stable 1.0.x branch bugfix+maintenance only uploads to unstable > (python 2) > master branch development uploads to > experimental (python 3) > > The development (py 3) variant is not yet ready for an upload to > unstable for weeks/month. > > In the past, I was quite happy to do "mini-buildd stable" uploads to > unstable, and then do occasional backports from testing. Thus people > could just find/install bugfix releases via Debian (through > backports). > > With python 2 getting removed from Debian, I can no longer go the > 'bpo-way'. Although it is somewhat documented that there is a 3rd > party PPA available, people usually don't find it (or don't want to > use it). > > I.e., I would love to do be able to do bugfix releases via Debian > again, and afaics proposed-updates is now the option I have. > > The most annoying issue long fixed after 1.0.36 is this > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=951641 > > Candidates for proposed-updates imho: > > 1.0.37: Some fixes especially for buster, but did not quite make it; > fix for #951641. > 1.0.41: What's currently in unstable. >
We'd need to see diffs for a proposed upload before OKing anything here. > 1.0.44: Most recent stable: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/mini-buildd/-/tree/1.0.x This, however, definitely doesn't work - you can't upload packages to stable that are are newer than what's in unstable, not least because by definition that means the bugfixes haven't been applied and tested there. > As a side question: Would it still work/be ok to upload (python 2) > 1.0.44 to unstable, just for the sake that people are aware of this > new version? The SRMs have no control or say over what packages you upload to unstable. However, doing so isn't going to help with either of the RC bugs that the package currently has there. (I'm aware that they don't apply to stable.) Regards, Adam
