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/[email protected] 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
