Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:15:37PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
[Backports of Squeeze packages in Etch-Backports]
> > 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.
Yeah, I only read the subject of that mail since you pre-announced it
more or less a few weeks before and I had to catch up with mails after
being out of office for nearly one week -- my fault.
> I would say its too late now,
> but this point will be discussed for squeeze-bpo.
My suggestion for a solution (although I know from IRC that Alex won't
like it :-) is, to have two APT repositories for oldstable -- in case
of etch this would be:
etch-stable-backports (for backports with no higher version than in stable)
etch-testing-backports (for backports with versions from testing)
Kind regards, Axel Beckert
Axel Beckert <email@example.com> support: +41 44 633 26 68
IT Services Group, HPT D 17 voice: +41 44 633 41 89
Departement of Physics, ETH Zurich
CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/