On Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:02:11 AM Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Scott Kitterman's message of Wed Mar 30 08:31:15 -0700 2011: > > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports > > > > It's driven by user request and testing. In the case of packages with > > rdepends we require testing of those as well (sometimes rdepends need to > > be backported as well) so we don't leave users with a broken system. A > > reasonably large fraction of users enable backports, so we need to be > > careful (you should have seenthe flurry of bug reports when I did a > > backport that broke Flash). > > > > Once we have not-automatic fully deployed we might be able to reconsider > > this. > > > > Backports are a purely community driven process, so we're always looking > > for more help. > > Scott, I think it may be worth arguing for a bit more of the > Canonical-Employed server team members' time if backports achieves the > level of usability that seems very close. I think it would certainly > make upstreams happier too if instead of cherrypicking medium priority > fixes into -updates, we just put critical fixes in -updates and pointed > anyone wanting those nit-pick bugs fixed at backports.
That's exactly the model we'd like to have. More contribution is, of course, welcome. I would really like to minimize the amount of out of archive stuff our users need to get their needs met. Backports is, IMO, an important part of this. Scott K -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
