Full disclosure: I'm the friend quoted by Stephen above. I'm just trying to provide some feedback on this whole thing, so take it as you will.
I'm imagining that there's some policy that you must stick with *EXACTLY* the version of what was released, and back-porting the fixes that are required. However, that seems to me to mean that only issues which get reported to the Ubuntu team in Launchpad get fixed, and results that the community resources are spread thin because of duplication of effort between the Ubuntu maintainers and upstream. By this I mean that if Python (mentioned simply because I'm a committer there and most familiar with it) has a bug tracker, and does it's own releases of 2.6.0, 2.6.1, 2.6.2..., that really what needs to happen is that we mirror all bugs that go into those releases into launchpad so that you can be sure to keep the Ubuntu release up to date. The option I would expect is that when we release a Python 2.6.3, for example, that we are stating that it's got the recommended set of updates from 2.6.2. I don't fully understand why you would spend the effort on cherry picking patches between the two when we've already done all that work for you. I imagine this might be due to some projects that don't do a very good job of making micro release numbers indicate only the recommended patches for people running the previous major/minor numbers, but that seems like it would be something you'd want an exception for rather than enforcing it on everyone. Particularly, it seems like picking 1.0.0beta5 of digikam was a signal that you wanted 1.0.0 in Karmic, but it just wasn't available for the release. In other words, the 1.0.0 release when available really seems not surprising to put in place. I mean, if the rules really are that you can't just wholesale upgrade to the 1.0.0 release, and you have to keep it beta5 with patches back- ported, it would seem like the Right Thing To Do would be to grab beta5 and 1.0.0, diff them, and use that as the patch-set for your 1.0.0beta5 packages. As someone who did beta testing of digikam at beta5 through the 1.0.0 release, I can say with some little authority that 1.0.0 is very preferable to beta5. Having it in backports makes it much less usable. As a user who recently gave a presentation on Digikam to our local Linux Users Group, I can say that the thought never crossed my mind that 1.0.0 would be in backports, I just figured that you hadn't gotten around to updating to it yet. I was going to grab the source for Lucid and build it, but I didn't have time, so I ended up demonstrating it on Fedora, where they *DID* release initial beta packages and then push out the 1.0.0 release once it was available. Sean -- ubuntu shouldn't package beta version of digikam; needs upgrading to fix >200 bugs, and in particular import crashes #8 most reported KDE bug ever. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/508843 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to digikam in ubuntu. -- kubuntu-bugs mailing list kubuntu-b...@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-bugs
