Re: Lenny backports
Quoting Gerfried Fuchs (rhonda@deb.at):
> > 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?
As you mention: the reluctance of being forced to update 3.2.5 through
t-p-u if we do so.
I understand this is a balance and I understand that having a sole
packaging for lenny-backports would not comply to the established
practice that theses are "backports from unstable" and therefore need
to have their counterpart in unstable.
Starting this thread, I roughly had the idea of shaking the tree to
see what fruits could fall down...:-)...I certainly don't want to
enforce any kind of new feature.....even more as I don't have a
precise idea of what is preferrable here..:-)
Reply to: