Re: New Backports Suite created

[Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 08:49:03 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>         Hi!
> 
> * Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> [2010-10-04 22:56:49 CEST]:
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:32:28 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > >  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?
> 
>  Because one is backports to lenny, and one is backports to squeeze?
> I really hope you can understand the difference?
> 
> > That just makes it hard for the user to decide which they need/want.
> 
>  Documentation is in the works, please be patient.
> 
> > 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).
> 
>  I usually dislike to repeat myself, but unstable in the name won't
> happen because it doesn't carry what it is for or meant to be. Your
> concern with respect to the name got heard, but please accept that other
> people have a different opinion. Repeated messages stating the same
> won't change that.

Understood, and I hope you saw that I corrected my own misunderstanding
in the follow-on message. Like I said, it's pretty clear to me now that
lenny-backports is actually lenny-backports-from-squeeze and
lenny-backports-sloppy is lenny-backports-from-wheezy.  Wouldn't those
be better names since they're much more self-descriptive?

Thanks again,
Mike