Hi At first I would like to thank all backporters for their great work. It is really important to keep things up to date and to provide stable and tested backports. But please allow me one remark. We are getting a lot of backports. I would also help to integrate them into backports.org (I am not yet a DD so i am not an active *sponsor*, sorry), but sometimes I think *why* do people want to have them at backports.org. Please don't get me wrong, all of you are doing a great job, but having packages at bpo just to backports something isn't useful. So can you please add some reasons about why to include this backports into backports.org archive? For instance the -v option of dpkg-buildpackage is very useful and should be a standard for backporters, to reflect the changes. So for example although I really like cfengine2 and I am using it for the development of Debian-Edu/Skolelinux why do we need a backport for sarge? There might be some reasons which I don't know, so please inform me don't take it as a criticism, but keep it as good standard to add some reasons for a backport and please don't backport just because you want to have a backport :) Greetings Steffen On Tuesday 11 April 2006 22:32, Daniel Baumann wrote: > Tom Geissler wrote: > > I've made backports from acidbase, cfengine2 and their necessary > > packages (libphp-adodb, php-image-canvas and php-image-graph). > > ..and what should we do now? ;) > > Please, I don't like to guess what people want or do expect from us.. Is > this mail just for our information, or are you asking for review and > possible upload to backports.org?
Attachment:
pgptMU_OLzHoQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature