Re: Why are backports of Squeeze packages in etch-backports?
On 10 Mar 2009, at 14:47, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
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
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
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
fine with me.
I would kind of dislike (2), since we're regularly updating some
things from backports and the update from oldstable to stable is
delayed until we aren't so busy (which is usually in summer) ... (2)
would mean no updates for those packages.