Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?
Dominic Hargreaves schrieb am Monday, den 02. March 2009:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 03:06:54PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Axel Beckert schrieb am Monday, den 02. March 2009:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > *snip*
> > > Having backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports doesn't really
> > > make a dist-upgrade from Etch to Lenny easier.
> > See:
> > http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20090220.215045.8a623425.en.html
> It's probably a bit late now if this policy has been inacted, but I'd
> like to vote *against* it.
> Not allowing such backports would indeed make direct upgrades to lenny
> much easier, and it seems a great shame to risk breaking upgrades in
> this way.
> I'd say that it was reasonable for people who want things backported
> from squeeze to need to upgrade to the current stable release first.
It is the same policy as we had for sarge-bpo so I just adapted it here and
nobody complained against it.
I would say its too late now, but this point will be discussed for