On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:11:57AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > Jelmer Vernooij: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > [...] > > > Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help > > > you? > > > > Reviving this thread that's more than a year old... > > > > [...] > > > > Known issues that still need to be addressed: > > > > * backport from testing rather than unstable > > * rename the suite from bullseye-backports to something that does't > > clash with the official backports (version strings are already > > different) > > * finish processing the rest of the archive > > * better sanity checking to prevent too many dependencies from being > > pulled in > > > > I haven't decided on a name yet. "auto-bullseye-backports", perhaps? > > To save the janitor some compute power, would make sense to skip packages > that have already been backported? E.g., I noted there is an auto-backport > for debhelper even though debhelper is "in sync" between stable-backports > and testing (or even sid at the moment). > > Other than that, I think this looks great and I hope this will help make > backporting more smooth.
Yeah, that's a good point - I've now excluded these and packages with the same version in stable and testing. Reduces the todo queue by about 5000 packages :) Cheers, Jelmer
