On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 07:46:56AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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).
Seconded.
Mike
--
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/20100907065946.ga4...@glandium.org
