Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?
as the one who started this avalanche, I'm following this thread quite
closely and I'm happy to see that the majority seems to have the same
expectations or at least opinion as I have...
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:21:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I confess I haven't been following this thread closely enough, but this
> isn't a new issue. We had the same problem with sarge-backports when
> Etch released.
Yeah, Alex pointed this out on IRC, too.
> So it seems (from that policy) that etch + etch-backports to lenny +
> lenny-backports should work.
Yeah, and I'm sure it does.
But that's what many of us (if not most, just saw a half vote against
it so far) want to change.
Rhonda explained the reasons for this very nicely in several
mails. Thanks, again!
Short summary: Many use backports in oldstable only because of needing
single new features which are already available in stable and
therefore neither need nor want an upgrade path from oldstable-bpo to
stable-bpo but from oldstable-bpo to stable.
Kind regards, Axel Beckert
Axel Beckert <email@example.com> support: +41 44 633 26 68
IT Services Group, HPT D 17 voice: +41 44 633 41 89
Departement of Physics, ETH Zurich
CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland http://nic.phys.ethz.ch/