proposal do disallow syncs of library packages from experimental without approval

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> > from
> > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
> > other
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The issue is not really specific to experimental, that could happen the
> same way with updates done in Ubuntu directly or syncs from unstable.
> 
> While I agree that people who start a transition should have some
> responsibilities in it I also think that we should be ok with dropping
> unmaintained code which is not ported at the end of the cycle (and not
> especially require that whoever started the transition has to be the one
> that should fix the universe).
> 
> If we had the resources to both push forward our default installation
> with the softwares most users care and port the universe it would be
> great but in really we don't and I think we shouldn't let universe
> crufts stop use to improve the default experience.
> To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3
> wouldn't be a good use of our time, we better spend the resources we
> have making sure our current desktop version is great.
> If some people want to work on porting the applications they care about,
> great, otherwise the source can be dropped and will come back once its
> upstream or somebody else pick it up and update the code.

I think Gnome2 -> Gnome3 is an exceptional case where that is particularly 
true.  In general either all that's needed are rebuilds or digging for 
patches.  I think if we're going to do a transition the developer needs to at 
least follow through and try to deal with Universe and file bugs where things 
fail.  I don't think just fixing Main and then saying "Meh, Univierse, 
Whatever" is appropriate.

Scott K