Hi Bernd, On 17-02-2021 22:30, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 18:37 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: >> libvirt-python is a key package. > > and it should match libvirt. Having libvirt-python 6.x and libvirt 7.0 > is (imho, ymmv...) much worse than an completely (from us) untested > libvirt-python.
I understood from the request that it's an option to patch 6.x. Because, if Guido believes it really should match, than why did he file an unblock request? We're only in the soft freeze right now, only *new* packages are blocked and we age packages a bit more, so technically there's nothing to unblock at this moment. Currently it's still the maintainers call what's right for bullseye. We, as the release team, ask for targeted fixes. If you consider this out-of-sync to be an issue of its' own, than please, align with Guido and I have good faith that you'll do the best in Debian interest, keeping our guidelines in the freeze policy [1] into account. I suggest to really not wait to long, because after the hard freeze starts, this indeed requires an unblock from us. If the package (whichever option you choose) can migrate before that, that would be great. Paul [1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#soft
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
