Re: New Backports Suite created
Michael Gilbert schrieb am Monday, den 04. October 2010:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:32:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Hi!
> > * Michael Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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).
We will always have a sloppy squeeze-backports on, but it will only get
filled if a backports tree is oldstable or at the end of a freeze (like
happened now for lenny-backports-sloopy). And we will not call it
unstable, as it has nothing to do with unstable and would lead to wrong