[Pkg-mailman-hackers] Re: [mm-deb] Should we support backporting?

[Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi]

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Siggy Brentrup <bsb@debian.org> wrote:
> since only Laszlo has subscribed to this list at the time of this
> writing, I'm Cc'ing the others and the disfunctional
> pkg-mailman-hackers.
 I think you missed someone, as Lionel is there two times, and we are a
group of five.

> Regarding Bug #223348 the question arises wether we should
> support backporting to woody.  The submitter supplies a
> patch, nevertheless I'm inclined to tag this bug *wontfix*
> as long as policy doesn't require backport support.
> Opinions?
 Policy doesn't require backport support, exactly it forbids it (I mean
fixes are not accepted only for critical and security ones). So new
packages won't be officialy accepted. Anyway, I am +1 for _do provide_
backport support. Sarge is still a long way to go, and even if it's
released, most people won't upgrade until r1 or so (it will be a bit
harder also, as the GCC ABI changed between Woody and Sarge).
But for this we should be very cautious as not to break the stability of
Woody, thus we have to find a good balance between low priority Woody
packages and fixing the package for Sarge (higher priority IMHO). I
would say kindly ask this user for testing our proposed packages before
releases for Woody.

Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAYJC1MDatjqUaT90RAllWAJ4pw+N8vHXc525ylkAqv5G0EGQAUQCgmQQn
e2N6i0wiGZ7Kd9by2bSXnKA=
=Zfqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--