arma at mit.edu
Tue Oct 2 09:05:11 BST 2007
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:35:22AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman [2007-10-01 10:56 +0100]:
> > Surely it would be better to keep the package up-to-date in stable releases
> > instead. We have some standing exceptions to the update policy which allow
> > this.
> I agree. However, as long as we do not have a maintainer for it, this
> won't fly. So if nobody steps up in the next days, I am going to
> remove it. I filed  to make sure to not forget about it.
>  https://launchpad.net/bugs/147987
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?
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.
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. :)
More information about the Ubuntu-motu