On 06/09/10 at 20:32 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 06 sep 10, 17:52:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Alexander Reichle-Schmehl writes ("Backports service becoming official"):
> > > Because of limitations in the Debian Bug Tracking System, any bugs
> > > relevant to backported packages still have to be reported to the
> > > debian-backports [3] list, which have now also been moved to
> > > lists.debian.org [4].
> >
> > What are the BTS limitations ? Perhaps it could be improved to
> > support backports too. Using mailing lists for this is a bit 1980's :-)
>
> From what I understand it's the version tracking and the fact that
> backports can have a different Maintainer then the "regular" package.
Now that backports are becoming official, I think that it is the right
time to reconsider the maintenance model of backports. I would
personally prefer if we had the same rules of packages ownership as for
normal packages ("normal" backport maintainer = maintainer of the
package in unstable).
Of course, that doesn't remove the possibility for people to upload NMU
backports when the maintainer is not responsive/interested in providing
a backport. But then the normal rules of NMUs should apply (in
particular, the NMUer must not change the Maintainer field, and should
monitor the bugs of the package).
- Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100907054656.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info
