Re: Evince backport proposal
Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> - "testing"'s goal is to automate some dependency consistency checks,
> but that's irrelevant to bpo, because bpo is primarily about
> altering those dependencies.
> Dependency checks are manually performed by each backporter.
nope. packages which enter testing have, at least, the most ovious bugs
fixed, both regarding to debian/* and upstream. that is excately what we
> Sticking to testing already leads to contradicting effects:
> backports.org offers a buggy version of OpenOffice2 (2.0.1) from
> testing while there is a bug-fixed version (2.0.2) in unstable for
ooo2 is a special case in everything, including backports. i'm sure rene
will tell you more than one reason why he intentionally didn't upload a
newer ooo2 backport yet.
> In the particular case of evince, the difference (dependency fix) is
> so meaningless that it indeed doesn't matter, but I'd like to better
> understand this first.
apart from what i've already said above, one key point of backports.org
is to ensure the upgrade path from sarge-backports to testing. if
unstable backports were given, such a system would not be as easy to
uprade as it is with testing backports.
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist