On 11013 March 1977, Micha Lenk wrote: > 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? The point of backports are "to have a limited set of newer applications run on [old]stable". The release of etch doesnt invalidate this for sarge. > 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. I am admin of a number of machines that are really mission-critical and where such an upgrade takes weeks (test all services and the migration first on different hardware, then schedule an outage together with a night-shift, migrate, test, fix) - forcing upgrades just because its simpler isnt really nice. Yes, you have to do it at one time, but why should bpo enforce it more than security does? So keeping sarge-bpo open as long as sarge security exists is IMO good. Even for new versions of packages, if someone wants to maintain them. -- bye Joerg I can mail d-legal to know the worst possible position about that license
Attachment:
pgp9TmHOV87TK.pgp
Description: PGP signature