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

[Anthony DeRobertis <aderobertis@metrics.net>]

Axel Beckert wrote:
> But that's what many of us (if not most, just saw a half vote against
> it so far) want to change.
>   

I failed to include this in my original message: As a user of
backports.org, my preference would be:

   1. The two-repositories idea (from back last time this was
      discussed), one for upgrade path to stable+1, one for upgrade path
      to stable+1&backports
   2. One repository, with upgrade path to stable+1
   3. Current policy

I have a few machines (out of 20+) that would be better served by (1)
than (2). Further, the only packages that I'd ever pull from
stable+1&backports would be things like the kernel. Which can generally
just be installed from testing (or unstable) directly.

But I understand that (1) is more time spent by the already very
generous volunteers who run backports.org (thank you!) and really (2) is
fine with me.