Re: backports from acidbase and cfengine2

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Sebastian Harl <sh@tokkee.org> wrote:

> Hi Steffen,
>
> I don't really get your point. What are you trying to say/ask? "There should
> not be any packages that I don't need." Is that what you're trying to say?
>
> Usually, people create backports to be able to run up to date software on a
> stable Debian system. And I think, it's very kind to upload them to a public
> repository.

I don't know what he's trying to say, but here's what I understood:  If
I look at the packages at backports.org, there are three groups:  

- Some I do not have installed at all, neither sarge versions nor
  backports.

- There are others for which I regretted very much we didn't manage to
  get newer versions into sarge (Xorg or my teTex packages come to
  mind),  and it's totally clear why some people want them.

- There are others that I have installed in their sarge versions, I use
  them, but I don't know much about them, especially not about their
  upstream development.  I have no idea of the difference between the
  sarge and backports versions is relevant to me.

Of course it depends on the person which packages fall into the second
or third category - other people use LaTeX, but have no problem with
sarge's version and don't know what they miss when they don't use the
backport. 

But anyway, for the third category, it would be nice to have a rationale
"why you might want this backport".  It makes a difference whether the
explanation is "Finally works with Foo hardware" when you know it works
with your Bar, or "GUI has completely been reworked, much more
userfriendly now, and a commandline interface has been added".

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)