Re: python-rarfile_4.2-3~bpo12+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Hi Jeroen,

On 10/28/25 09:50, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:11:19 +0000
> Micha Lenk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The backport itself looks good, but is eligible for suite
>> bookworm-backports (the version you backported is available in
>> trixie). Please upload to that suite instead.
> I went with bookworm-backports-sloppy here because the backport of
> python-rarfile is required by sabnzbdplus >=4.5.4 (as mentioned in my
> message to the mailing list yesterday), which itself can only ever go
> into -sloppy as trixie is at 4.5.0.
>
> For my understanding: can a maintainer assume that any user enabling
> *-backport-sloppy also has *-backports enabled? In other words, can
> packages in -backports-sloppy depend on things available only via the
> regular -backports for the same Debian release, along the lines of
> how that works for contrib and main?

Ah, sorry. I missed your mail. My bad, please re-upload to 
bookworm-backports-sloppy.

Best regards,
Micha