On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:54:58 +0100 Jan Wagner <waja@cyconet.org> wrote: > Hi there, > > this is meant as general problem and not regarded only to Romain, so > no direct fingerpointing, this is just meant as example. > > Today I was working on a (private) backport and did need dh-ocaml, > which is not in stable. Looking on lenny-bpo I recognized, there is a > package there ... but unfortunately horrible outdated. > > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:12:44 Romain Beauxis wrote: > > dh-ocaml (0.4.1~bpo50+1) lenny-backports; urgency=low > > . > > * Rebuild for lenny-backports. > > . > > <cite="http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute";>Before > uploading please think about how useful the package is for stable > users and if you want to support the package until support for the > distribution you uploaded ends.</cite> > > This doesn't mean, you have to backport every minor change, but you > should take care for new major releases and of course, fixing > security bugs until the end of support for the target distribution. > How is one meant to do this when a new major release adds twice as many dependencies as the older version? I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to fight an uphill battle like that. Security support, bugfixes, sure.. but new major versions? One could argue that it should be done on an as-needed basis.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature