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

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

Micha Lenk schrieb am Monday, den 09. March 2009:

> Hi,
> 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...
That is what you expect. But if we get consense here I don't see any problem
to have a decision now (even if it will not be valid until 2010 oder 2011 :))


Reply to: