2011/6/9 Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie>: > 'Twas brillig, and Christiaan Welvaart at 09/06/11 10:40 did gyre and > gimble: >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Maarten Vanraes wrote: >> >>> otoh, perhaps a missing package is also a bugfix... maybe we could >>> file bug >>> reports for missing packages and go through the updates route... >> >> Filing bug reports is not a bad idea, even if the new package will go to >> backports. Just explain a little why it is important (to fix this in a >> stable release). >> >> We probably need a new "version" in bugzilla because mga1+backports is >> basically a new distro. A bug in backports shouldn't be filed against >> "1" IMHO.
There's already a lot of requests for missing packages in Bugzilla, the question about filing such bug reports was answered long ago. > As I said in my original mail I really don't think backports is the > right approach. > > I'd prefer to have a 3rd party repo than abuse backports to get the > missing packages. I thought we will try to avoid 3rd party repos? > I think updates would be the right place. > > Perhaps we can make the submission process check to see if there already > exists a package and if not, allow packagers to submit directly to > core/updates? That way the first version of the package will make it to > updates but subsequent changes will have to go via QA? > > While the "oops I messed up the first version" problem could happen, it > would at least keep the burden on the packager for the majority of cases > which is how we want it (from my understanding of the previous messages > on this thread). -- wobo