Re: Lenny backports
* Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> [2008-12-14 08:59:32 CET]:
> I just joined this mailing list but I somewhat suspect I'll met
> several folks I already know ..:-)
Hi, bubulle. ;)
> I actually joined because, as part of the work on the samba packages,
> I intend to try providing backports of samba upstream releases during
> the lenny lifecycle.
I guess some users will be happy about that. :)
> Indeed, we already need to provide these "backports" as the situation
> for samba in official Debian is the following:
>
> - lenny will be released with samba 3.2.5. 3.2.6 (released a few days
> ago) introduces too many changes for being suitable for lenny
>
> - experimental has the soon-to-come 3.3.* releases. 3.3.0 is planned
> for release by the Samba Team around Jan 5th.
>
> So, our users are actually missing up-to-date releases of samba for
> lenny and they will be missing them during lenny's release cycle.
So, far, so good and understood.
[...]
> In our case, having 3.2.6 in lenny-backports would not be exactly a
> backport as there is no such version in Debian unstable but I think
> you get the point.
Unfortunately I don't really get it, no. Even if it would possible to
agree on that we would want to open lenny-backports now and allow
packages from unstable to get added there with the thought that once
lenny is released they will move over to squeeze, you didn't actually
add it to unstable, so it won't be any backport at all, it would be a
sole packaging for lenny-backports and not appear anywhere else.
I know that I'm not the only one having a fuzzy feeling about this and
dislike that approach. What hinders you _really_ to add it to unstable?
In the case that 3.2.5 will need an update it still could go through
lenny-proposed-updates. Yes, I know that these approaches are
discouraged, but I still don't think that this would be reason enough to
have an extreme influence on side-projects and spinoffs, and this would
actually be such a case.
So long,
Rhonda
Reply to: