Re: New Backports Suite created
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:32:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [2010-10-04 22:20:31 CEST]:
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:15:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > > The Backports Team is pleased to announce the availability of a new
> > > suite on backports: lenny-backports-sloppy. Please read carefully
> > > before considering using or uploading to it what this entails.
> >
> > This seems like a really uninviting name. Wouldn't something
> > like lenny-unstable-backports be more descriptive of what it actually
> > is, and actually better all around?
>
> Actually, no, because that would give the impression that actually
> backports from unstable are wanted in it, which is only the exception,
> especially for now during the freeze of squeeze. After squeeze is
> released the same rules like for squeeze-backports will apply, the
> package has to be in testing (which will be wheezy by then).
If they're the same thing at that point, then why have both? That
just makes it hard for the user to decide which they need/want. It
seems like it would be cleaner to always have an *-unstable-backports,
but most of the time it would be empty (except for during the freeze).
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: