Re: Backports vs Pinning Lenny
Hi,
Luis Matos wrote:
> Using the porposed scheme for package versions should let users to
> upgrade from sarge-bpo to etch-bpo to lenny-bpo easily wich is very
> good.
... so what's the point in doing any Debian Release any more?
Supporting the users in weird or at least exceptional environments will
lead to outrageous efforts for supporting their setup. Who will support
these users in favour of keeping the real Debian suites in shape?
> i know several software work from lenny to etch and even sarge, but it's
> not easy to use. So, is this case what i propose is that bpo should use
> the lenny version ( the people who submit, just submits the same version
> that is in lenny). In the future, with bpo integrated in debian's
> archives, we can have the same file for lenny and bpo.
I'd strongly vote against integrating bpo into Debian as an official
supported suite. This simply makes stuff more complicated than neccessary.
Regarding all the (sublimal) requests for uploads of packages newer than
Etch I would even vote for (technically enfoced) stopping any further
uploads to sarge-backports for packages with higher version than
available in Etch. Why should we bother to supply newer software in
sarge-backports than in Etch? Or again: What's the point of releasing Etch?
I think we should encourage the users to upgrade to our latest stable
release (Etch) instead of providing any new package uploads (other than
security fixes) in sarge-backports.
Just my thoughts...
Micha
Reply to: