Quoting Max Kellermann (m...@duempel.org): > I'm the upstream maintainer of the Music Player Daemon project, and > receive a number of support requests / bug reports from Debian users > who use the outdated version 0.15.12 of "mpd", currently in testing. > These bugs were already fixed in newer maintenance releases. > > I know that Debian does not upgrade upstream versions at this point. > However, I would like to know if upgrading within an upstream "stable" > branch like MPD's v0.15.x would be acceptable.
I have about the same concern for samba..:-) (except that I'm not samba upstream as most people know...) For the lenny release cycle, we (samba maintainers...indeed often me) pushed several upstream fixes for bugs reported in Debian with severity "important". This, in addition, of course, to the security fixes. This has been accepted by the Stable Release Team in each case. However, upstream's policy in their "stable" branches is alway to only fix "important" bugs (they don't call them this way...but the definition is fairly close to Debian's). So, *in the case of samba*, I can guarantee that the user's (indeed sysadmin's) experience is much improved if (s)he can follow the upstream minor releases. So, I'm strongly considering asking the SRT if it would be OK to track samba 3.5 branch along the life of squeeze (we'll be releasing with samba 3.5.6). This is certainly a trade-off to do on a case-by-case basis. In the case of samba, I'm as certain as one can be that upstream's policy is strict enough for me to more or less blindly follow them (particularly just right now as samba 3.5 has aged enough in the Samba Team barrels...;-)). The situation may be different for other upstreams, of course.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
