On Wed, 24 May 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This part of the policy continues with: > > If your package had a security update you can upload a new backport > even if its not yet in testing. If you have good reasons to update a > package which is already is in backports with a newer version from > unstable (which is intended for testing), > > The "should" and "exceptions" you quote only permit to backport > a package from unstable that is not yet in testing.
That's not so clear. When you give a rationale, it has a meaning. It means that's what you really care about. And the should is then a recommendation aka "the best way to ensure <rational> is by doing X". > There are plenty of examples of packages currently in backports proving > that "it's up to the backport maintainer" is not working - like versions > more recent than in jessie in wheezy-backports, or backports that cannot > be installed because the backport maintainer built them against stretch > packages. What's your point? Of course maintainers are humans, they do mistakes in unstable and they do mistakes in *-backports. How is this related with my request and this discussion? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ _______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
