[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: etch or sid? (Was: Evince backport proposal)

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I understand what you mean, and I now see how nicely backport makes
> > the current Debian release and the next one progressively closer.
> > 
> > But... is it really what we want? :)
> Yes, it is.
> > However I think it is already possible to seamlessly upgrade from
> > sid backports.
> No, it's not. Downgrades of packages are neither supported, nor
> tested.


Let's have a practical look.

When I needed to install OOo2.0.2, I had to rely on alien-ing the
official RPMs. The result will be, in the end, way clumsier to upgrade
when etch will be out. Maybe OOo2.0.2 is a bad example, but on the
other hand both Ubuntu Dapper and even FC5 (march 2006) ship it.

On the contrary, I'm currently using my downgraded breezy without

Incidentally, do you think it would be good to document this bpo
'policy' on the official page?

Thanks for the quick answer,


Reply to: