While we're on the subject of infrastructure, I think official Backports is working out very well. Thanks, James & others for building the packages for us, and thanks, Martin for stepping up to the plate for communications & relations. With my busy schedule, I couldn't do it without you guys! The only thing I'd like to bring some attention to is a "staging" area...
Matt, you once alluded (at the end of the Backports meeting) to plans for implementing binary copies, the equivalent of our -staging tree. Does that appear like it'd happen by the end of October? That'd be great to have, since we don't have the resources to build packages for all architectures for testing. We've seen cases (nvu is a good example) where a package works fine on one architecture but crashes on another. Without a testing repository, it's difficult to find these things out before they contaminate our stable tree.
Also, to developers (forward to the appropriate contact): Can we get breezy-backports lines in Breezy's default sources.list, only commented out with a disclaimer (sort of like how Universe is there)? That way, users can simply check a checkbox to activate Backports instead of using text editors and cut & pasting long URL's.
Other than that, I think Backports is top-notch now. Together, we've made a great distribution even better by offering high-quality version updates with minimal stability problems.
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
