Re: New Backports Suite created
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michael Gilbert
<michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:32:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> * Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [2010-10-04 22:20:31 CEST]:
>> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:15:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> > > The Backports Team is pleased to announce the availability of a new
>> > > suite on backports: lenny-backports-sloppy. Please read carefully
>> > > before considering using or uploading to it what this entails.
>> >
>> > This seems like a really uninviting name. Wouldn't something
>> > like lenny-unstable-backports be more descriptive of what it actually
>> > is, and actually better all around?
>>
>> Actually, no, because that would give the impression that actually
>> backports from unstable are wanted in it, which is only the exception,
>> especially for now during the freeze of squeeze. After squeeze is
>> released the same rules like for squeeze-backports will apply, the
>> package has to be in testing (which will be wheezy by then).
>
> If they're the same thing at that point, then why have both? That
> just makes it hard for the user to decide which they need/want. It
> seems like it would be cleaner to always have an *-unstable-backports,
> but most of the time it would be empty (except for during the freeze).
OK, so lenny-backports is actually lenny-backports-from-squeeze and
lenny-backports-sloppy is actually lenny-backports-from-wheezy.
Wouldn't those names be more descriptive? As an outsider, I have no
idea what sloppy means.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: