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

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

* Chris Butler <chrisb@debian.org> [2009-03-07 02:31:34 CET]:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:54:02PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Chris Butler <chrisb@debian.org> [2009-03-06 16:51:24 CET]:
> > >     backports.org is a semi-official repository provided by Debian GNU/Linux
> > >     developers, which provides newer packages for the stable release, based
> > >     on a rebuild from the packages from the “testing” archive.
> > > 
> > >     The backports.org repository mainly contains packages from “testing”,
> > >     with reduced version numbers so that the upgrade path from etch
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >     backports to lenny still works.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Ah, thanks - sorry to have read only the first part of the sentence.
But only reading parts has started this thread, so I'm save. ;)

> I understand the above to mean that the version numbers of packages in
> etch-backports are lower than those of packages in lenny, so that you can
> upgrade from a package in etch-backports to the package in lenny. I doubt
> I'm the only person who reads it this way.

 Not only reading it this way - but also expecting it this way. To be
honest, I see more people that have raised their voices than those who
wants to keep the current approach; not sure wether there actually was

 But like Alexander said - for etch-backports we have lost already in
that respect so it's sensible to switch the policy at the time that
squeeze gets released, not earlier.

 So long. :)

Reply to: