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

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


Gerfried Fuchs schrieb:
> * Chris Butler <chrisb@debian.org> [2009-03-07 02:31:34 CET]:
>> 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
> someone?
>  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.

Then, can we agree on such a new policy *now*, so we can reference to a
certain mail on backports-users once squeeze is released and packages
from squeeze+1 get uploaded to bpo? This could avoid that we get the
same (of course valid) excuse again in the future. We can then finally
do what the backports users (me included) expect...


Reply to: