Hi Paul, On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:55:14PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Bernd, > > On 17-02-2021 22:30, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 18:37 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> libvirt-python is a key package. > > > > and it should match libvirt. Having libvirt-python 6.x and libvirt 7.0 > > is (imho, ymmv...) much worse than an completely (from us) untested > > libvirt-python. > > I understood from the request that it's an option to patch 6.x. Because, > if Guido believes it really should match, than why did he file an > unblock request? We're only in the soft freeze right now, only *new*
I don't think I marked it as unblock request. I used "allow" here to indicate that i'm not entirely sure if the scope is still o.k. Sorry if it was confusing. > packages are blocked and we age packages a bit more, so technically > there's nothing to unblock at this moment. Currently it's still the > maintainers call what's right for bullseye. We, as the release team, ask > for targeted fixes. If you consider this out-of-sync to be an issue of > its' own, than please, align with Guido and I have good faith that > you'll do the best in Debian interest, keeping our guidelines in the > freeze policy [1] into account. I suggest to really not wait to long, Uploaded now. Cheers, -- Guido > because after the hard freeze starts, this indeed requires an unblock > from us. If the package (whichever option you choose) can migrate before > that, that would be great. > > Paul > > [1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#soft >
