Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removal of linux-base from jessie-backports broke Xen upstream CI

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote.  (Thanks
> also for Sam for his helpful perspective.)
> Stepping back a bit, and firmly putting my `user' hat on:
> My aim was to share my experience, because I guess the point of
> jessie-backports (and of much of what we do in Debian) is to help
> Debian's users.  In this case I was a user who had something go wrong,
> but I was in the unusually fortunate situation of being able (due to
> my personal skills, my support network, and my available time) to
> diagnose the problem and write up a report.
> I did this because I thought it would be worthwhile seeing if Debian
> thought there was anything here to be learned, about how to better
> support some of its users.  If those responsible for these services
> don't think so, then, well, as users we get what we pay for.
> If those responsible for -backports don't value this kind of feedback
> then of course next time I can not write it up as a learning
> opportunity for Debian.  I can just work around it instead.
So let me rephrase as an admin. You - the user - ignored three announcements
about the deprecation and the change of the metapackage handling of the
linux-image package, but you want us to send more even more announcements to
get you better informed? I don't get it, what distinguishes those explicit
removal announcements from the other announcements you ignored? 

Alex - backports ftpmaster 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature