Tor Packages

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at
Tue Oct 2 10:22:39 BST 2007


Roger Dingledine [2007-10-02  4:05 -0400]:
> If Matt meant "move to the new stable branch of Tor when upstream
> abandons support for its old stable branch" when he said "keep the package
> up-to-date in stable releases", then I'd be curious to learn more about
> this option. What are the standing exceptions for this situation?

We do not do this for any package ATM. We do have some standing
exceptions for bug fix microversion updates [1], but not for new major
releases with new features, etc.

> If this is indeed what he meant, then we're nearly there -- our Debian
> maintainer keeps fine packages that traditionally have been compatible
> with Ubuntu, so in most cases the act of maintaining it would be to go
> fetch a copy of the deb from the Debian maintainer.

As I explained in the bug [2], we really need someone who actually
uses tor on a stable Ubuntu release and thus is qualified to test it
properly. If the requirements are met (new versions do not break
existing configuration and work smoothly on upgrades, and are tested
properly), then I think it does make sense to instantiate an

This is barring approval from the MOTU UVF team, of course.

> But if Matt meant "surely it would be better to find a maintainer willing
> to maintain a version that upstream has abandoned", then I stick with
> my previous response. :)

I don't know about the Tor upstream development. If new releases break
compatibility for some reasons, then my proposal above isn't suitable
at all and we should remove the package. If upgrades are supported by
upstream, then maintaining abandoned upstream releases will only waste
work and not benefit users either, IMHO.




Martin Pitt
Ubuntu Developer
Debian Developer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list