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

[Alain Baeckeroot <alain.baeckeroot@laposte.net>]

Le 02/03/2009 à 16:15, Alexander Wirt a écrit :
> 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:
> > > > 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

> I would say its too late now, but this point will be discussed for
> squeeze-bpo.

Hi i'm new on the list, but a long user of great backport.org.
i would also have voted against this policy, unless etch will be 
security-maintained for some years.

I have one laptop that cannot upgrade to lenny (due to nvidia drivers), 
so i think of "legacy-port" etch kernels + Xnvidia to lenny, this would be 
much more secure than an unmaintained distro.

Any opinion/advice/hint about this is welcome.

Alain.