Re: Automated backports based on Janitor work?

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@jelmer.uk>]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 09:11:57AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39:06AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Jelmer, did you already think about that? Is there a way one could help
> > > you?
> > 
> > Reviving this thread that's more than a year old...
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Known issues that still need to be addressed:
> > 
> >   * backport from testing rather than unstable
> >   * rename the suite from bullseye-backports to something that does't
> >     clash with the official backports (version strings are already different)
> >   * finish processing the rest of the archive
> >   * better sanity checking to prevent too many dependencies from being
> >     pulled in
> > 
> > I haven't decided on a name yet. "auto-bullseye-backports", perhaps?
> 
> To save the janitor some compute power, would make sense to skip packages
> that have already been backported?  E.g., I noted there is an auto-backport
> for debhelper even though debhelper is "in sync" between stable-backports
> and testing (or even sid at the moment).
> 
> Other than that, I think this looks great and I hope this will help make
> backporting more smooth.

Yeah, that's a good point - I've now excluded these and packages with the same version
in stable and testing. Reduces the todo queue by about 5000 packages :)

Cheers,

Jelmer