Re: "Backports" of Arch: all packages welcome?
Christoph Berg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Re: Norbert Tretkowski in <[🔎] 20060221103526.GC29650@rollcage.inittab.de>
>> > The real question is whether such arch: all packages should be
>> > included in bpo at all.
>> Why not?
>> It's easier for users to install a package from backports.org than
>> getting it from testing/unstable and install it manually.
> Having the package in bpo is also a nice way to state "the maintainer
> is confident that running the package on sarge is safe".
If you mean "the dependencies are really satisfied on sarge, it's not
that I just didn't bother to tigthen them to etch versions or newer",
than you are right. But if you mean "suitable for release", I wouldn't
count on that.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)