Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 05:52:56PM +0100, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> 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.
That would have trouble with nonkernel software whose contents is
closely correlated with particular kernel versions. For example,
I've has such problems during the sarge->etch transition with udev.
It would be necessary to legacy-port such software along with the
kernel, or avoid using it. At some point, it may well become
I'm currently using a borrowed laptop whose owner said that the *only*
version of Linux he's ever managed to boot onto it is Debian Etch. For
most of the others (not just Debian), the installers refused to boot.