Re: New Backports Suite created
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:03:12AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 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?
I don't understand why it matters where a package is backported from.
Maybe I'm unusual but I think about installing a backport based on what
features it gives me, not about which other suite has it.
As a user of Debian in our business, to install a backported package
that I need, what I then want to know is how it will affect the running
and stability of our systems. Debian's good engineering processes in
keeping the distro consistent and reliable are why I chose it to replace
the distro we were using previously.
As part of this, it is important to me to know whether a backport may
cause compatibility or upgrade problems so that I can make an informed
choice on whether I really need it.
I don't have any interest in whether the non-backported original was
from squeeze, wheeze, dozy, beaky, mick or titch - just in what trouble
it saves me now (features) versus what future trouble it may cause me
(which bpo people have chosen to call sloppiness, a word that denotes
less rigorous work).
Perhaps this might illustrate why, for my needs as a Debian user at least,
the present proposal does make good sense ?
Nick
Reply to: