Hello Dan, Dan Streetman [2023-10-05 13:09 -0400]: > I just reviewed and approved the cockpit-* uploads to jammy-backports, > looked fine and no concerns there, thanks!
Thanks! > For the uploads to lunar-backports, we had decided on a policy of not > accepting backports into non-LTS releases, unless an exception was > granted, so I didn't approve those uploads yet. > > @mapreri and @teward, do you remember why we decided that? Should we > reconsider potentially changing the rule to allow non-LTS backports > but not require them? Hm, when/why was that changed? I remember in my time it was kind of the opposite -- you *had* to provide backports for all supported releases. If a user updates a backported package from jammy to lunar, we don't want them to have "dangling" packages from old jammy-backports without any installation source, or a matching build for that OS. > Martin, if the lunar-backports uploads are important for you, please > feel free to reply and we can consider either an exception for the > cockpit-* packages, or possibly consider revising the no-non-LTS rule. I don't consider it super-important for cockpit specifically, but it feels like a dangerous rule due to the above? Thanks, Martin P.S. sorry for late reply. I now changed my filtering rules to see u-backports@ email right away. -- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
