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

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

* Micha Lenk <micha@lenk.info> [090309 09:56]:
> 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 leaves the question what backport users actually expect.

Restricting bpo to packages from the next release would effectively
freeze ${something}-bpo when ${something} becomes oldstable (thus making
it practically worthless in my eyes).

Restricting to packages that cause no problems with upgrading to the
next release keeps it more useful, but that might be hard to decide

I'd personally prefer a policy requesting that backports in
${oldstable}-bpo must have a upgrade path in ${stable}-bpo.

	Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: