[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 16:13, Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> wrote:
> 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.

I don't consider this as problem, since it was announced here before.
And you can always stop receiving updates from bpo before it happens.

> 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.

If you keep etch and lenny bpo in sync - you can always upgrade from
etch+bpo to lenny+bpo and it shouldn't pose a problem.

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>

Reply to: