Hi, * Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]> [2017-05-24 10:25:19 CEST]: > On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > It is maybe a problem and maybe we should get the policy changed - I > > personally don't think too. I don't wan't software that isn't in testing in > > backports - but doing it behinds our back is not an option. > > How do we fix the policy then? > > Maintaining a version that is older than the current version in testing > and that is newer than the current version in stable ought to be allowed.
How so, "ought to be allowed". It was always clearly communicated that that's not the way backports is working, or should. And yet you chose to ignore that and try to use that as a leverage to have it your way. I'm very sorry but that's not the way proper communication happens. I'm very sorry to the users of python-django, but I see an ignorance to the rules for which you requested your upload rights and a clear failure to communicate that. Thing that Scott raised: LTS support for backports for such packaging approaches can under no circumstances be carried by the LTS team. What could be possible for them is following when some update happens in $stable to add it to $oldstable-backports because the diff is expected to be minimal. If we have versions in $oldstable-backports that have no connection whatsoever to the version we have in $stable then that can't simply be taken over by others. The effort to maintain that further is immensly higher. I can see that you might be willing to carry that extra burden for your own sake, but it leaves the burden to be able to maintain it in cases you lose interest very high, if not very impractical. This is the reason we speak very vocally against having that changed. Also given that we have well over 25% of the packages that currently sit in jessie-backports not in sync with the upstream version from stretch is something that I consider highly alarming. A fair amount of those packages got uploaded to be (build-)dependencies of other packages in backports. I see a very low commitment to maintain packages properly in backports, and adding another layer of maintenance hell onto it won't fix that in any sense. As long as we can't even get the packages maintained in a useful state as they are now in the archive already I am very unwilling to discuss any further exceptions that would make the maintainability of packages within backports even less likely, not improve it. If you are unwilling to maintain your packages according to the rules, please let me know right ahead and we can discuss on how to reduce the damage done through removals from the archive and the ACL file. So long, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los | _______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
