On Thursday 15 January 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Jan Wagner <waja@cyconet.org> [2009-01-15 09:07:42 CET]: > > On Thursday 15 January 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > Please note that I intend to add samba to etch-backports, by > > > backporting the current unstable/lenny package (this is different from > > > the plans I mentioned one month ago: this time, this is a real > > > "classical" backport of the unstable package to etch). > > > > just a short note. Maybe you should have a look into "Basic Rules" on > > http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute: > > > > " * To guarantee an upgrade path from stable+backports to the next > > stable, the package should be in testing.. Of course there are some > > exceptions: Security updates. If your package had a security update you > > can upload a new backport even if its not yet in testing. There are also > > some other exception for packages like the kernel, xorg or oo.org." > > I am quite sure that bubulle understood these concerns last time, and > his mentioning of unstable is almost proper: It wasn't really clear to me and since the mail was also send to the samba maintainers, I just wanted to clarify that. It wasn't intended as start of any flamewars, so keep smiling. > But yes, propably it's better to wait the seven days. Given that it > will be a NEW package I am quite confident that formorer wouldn't > approve it earlier. :P > > So, no worries. :) Yeah .. our last line of defense. :-) With kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d-- s+: a- C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI- D++ G++ e++ h-- r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.