Hi Ola, On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:41:06PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi fellow LTS and ELTS contributors > > I have gone through the taks list we have for LTS on salsa and noticed > that we should close quite a few there because buster is no longer > part of LTS, but rather ELTS. > > https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-updates-tasks/-/issues > > For dns-root-data I created a new ticket in gitlab and proposed to > close the two for buster in salsa. > > My question is whether we should close all buster related tickets > there and create new ones in gitlab but only for the packages we > support there? >
The short answer is "no". > I think we should but before I go ahead and do that I want to check with you. > > I think we should simple close the EOL ones without creating new ones for ELS. > > And other ideas or objections? > There are three classes of buster-specific issues. Here is what needs to happen for each one: EOL: Santiago needs to ensure that packages which were proposed for EOL in buster are properly marked so that future support requests for them are rejected. This is not done in debian-security-support (because buster is now ELTS, as you point out), but interally. Santiago is already the assignee for those tasks, so they should be left alone. backport <package> to buster: yes, those should be transferred (or closed if they are actually not applicable, since they are created by an automation) failing autopkgtest: reported autopkgtest failures need to be tested in two ways; first, they must be confirmed to still be present when building on buster, and second, the bullseye version must be built on bullseye to see if the autopkgtest for that package on bullseye is working or not. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez ◈ Freexian SARL https://www.freexian.com
