Hello Mathias and Team, After carefully reading the page you mention, I still fail to understand why dnsmasq 2.46 should not make its way to Hardy LTS at all. Since : - It IS also a security upgrade (should be raised above hardy's current version according to upstream's site). - No regression was introduced, as other distros have acknowledged, as your competitors' package listings show. The only 'valid' reason mentioned on this policy page would be : "bugs that (a) are Fix Released in the current development release and (b) have been nominated but not approved for stable releases"... although it remains unclear what exact policy applies in these cases. Moreover, this update would seem to qualify as a MicroException, in Ubuntu's own terms, provided the packagers actually can communicate with one another, which seems to be very much the case. All in all, what a disappointing answer! Not even a remote chance, either now or later! It makes it look like Ubuntu LTS is not even striving for production-ready status and that this claim as well as that of "Long Term" is but a slogan. Moreover, such a brisk invalidation of an otherwise valid report without even bothering to examine or answer the other arguments we gave regarding the benefits this update could bring to Ubuntu gives your company a bad name. Not to mention referring us to your policy page, since software quality and marketing have little to do with one another. It had been a hard time convincing several of our customers to switch to Ubuntu, and there will be no way for me or anyone else to talk them into accepting quick and dirty handmade non-supported backports like the one I made for this daemon and am currently using. Alas, the management's conclusions will likely highly resemble mine above: not production-ready, not an LTS release but for the name. (Please note this is not the first issue of this kind we've come across, only the first one reported, and that it used to seem - from testing previous releases since the not-production-ready-either dapper drake - that Ubuntu's maintainers were among the most reactive). Still hoping at the very least for an officially supported backport... And at best for more sensible consideration, i.e. a detailed answer to the reasons we formerly gave for this request, which ideally would match Ubuntu's claims to quality. Meanwhile (if so) I remain terribly sorry for this lack of concern towards quality and human consideration. Regards, Dr. Moe "In a democratic community, nagging may seem an appropriate response to contempt." Rvd. J. Barley Le mardi 06 janvier 2009 à 15:44 +0000, Mathias Gug a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:45:38PM -0000, dr.moe wrote: > > _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the > > regular LTS repos ? > > > > So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be > > considered at all (there may be something I missed here...) > > > > I don't think so. Criteria for making Stable Release Updates are > outlined on the following wiki page: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates > > -- > Mathias Gug > Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com > Hi Thierry, Thanks for forwarding. Looking forward to the backporters' response. _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the regular LTS repos ? I must stress again that this would be an important improvement for LTS. To summarize: - if any dnsmasq user wants / needs to use a cname directive, v2.46 is required. - the question was asked several times in the past in every ubuntu forum whose language I can read (many times, that is...) - beginners won't backport - more experienced users may find it a waste of time to backport, and their work may not benefit to the community (I just backported, clumsily, and would not submit this work for anybody else's use unless someone officially in charge would take the time to validate / improve this backport). - anyone not directly involved in Ubuntu will not want to backport every single daemon in order to stick to the LTS release (I have backported 3 different servers last month, and this is not my idea of a Xmas holiday ;-). - LBNL who'd want the hassle of installing and configuring bind solely in order to declare a CNAME (or any number of them)? (or any other DNS server 4 that matter...) I probably should not have mentioned the backports repo in my previous message ; getting v2.46 there would surely be better than not at all on Hardy, _nonetheless_ the whole point should be to give _regular_ Hardy a simple DNS server with every function anyone would expect which works _out_of_the_box. So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be considered at all (there may be something I missed here...) Regards, Dr. Moe Redirecting to hardy-backports... Please see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports for more information on the backport process. ** Also affects: hardy-backports Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Status: New => Invalid -- Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/313960 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. Public bug reported: Binary package hint: dnsmasq Hello, Dnsmasq has added support for CNAME directives in the config file starting with version 2.46. This version is not available in Hardy, while I believe a LTS release should deserve this improvement. All alternatives require (to my knowledge) heavier configuration and / or demand more on resources. Switching to bind in order to use CNAME or compiling dnsmasq2.46 from source should be considered nontrivial/discourage for the average/beginning user. How about relasing a package for v2.46 in backports ? Regards, Dr. Moe ** Affects: dnsmasq (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Please update dnsmasq hardy packages to version 2.46 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/313960 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug.