Taper off Hoary, prepare Breezy...

Martin Meredith martin at sourceguru.net
Fri Sep 9 15:22:22 CDT 2005

I completely agree with what Johnsays, and according to what Matt said
when I briefly spoke to him... Breezy backports form Breezy +1
infrastructure should be available around same time as breezy +1 uploads..

With the point of breezy backports though - I'd like to see it go
official only, because having 2 different places for backports is
confusing, and time consuming... Obviously, there will still be
breezy-extras on the "unofficial" servers (which - top be quite honest,
I probbaly wouldn't be able to cope without), but - I'd like to see it
all in one place, not all over the place...

Also, I'd like to see (even though it's going to be hard) hoary
backports continue...  as, as we know, some people are still on warty,
and while they may not be many, it's nice to let them have updates too
... same goes for hoary :D

Anyways... those are my thoughts... :D

John Dong wrote:
> We're about a month (a bit more) away from Breezy's release, which is
> approximately when I stopped Warty Backports to concentrate on
> infrastructure changes (and also channel some enthusiasts to beta
> testing). I'm thinking we should do the same about now. Virtually
> everything important in Hoary has been backported and is fairly up-to-date.
> While we're on the subject of infrastructure, I think official Backports
> is working out very well. Thanks, James & others for building the
> packages for us, and thanks, Martin for stepping up to the plate for
> communications & relations. With my busy schedule, I couldn't do it
> without you guys! The only thing I'd like to bring some attention to is
> a "staging" area...
> Matt, you once alluded (at the end of the Backports meeting) to plans
> for implementing binary copies, the equivalent of our -staging tree.
> Does that appear like it'd happen by the end of October? That'd be great
> to have, since we don't have the resources to build packages for all
> architectures for testing. We've seen cases (nvu is a good example)
> where a package works fine on one architecture but crashes on another.
> Without a testing repository, it's difficult to find these things out
> before they contaminate our stable tree.
> Also, to developers (forward to the appropriate contact): Can we get
> breezy-backports lines in Breezy's default sources.list, only commented
> out with a disclaimer (sort of like how Universe is there)? That way,
> users can simply check a checkbox to activate Backports instead of using
> text editors and cut & pasting long URL's.
> Other than that, I think Backports is top-notch now. Together, we've
> made a great distribution even better by offering high-quality version
> updates with minimal stability problems.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20050909/48bc8ab5/signature.pgp

More information about the ubuntu-backports mailing list