Re: dpkg_126.96.36.199~bpo60+1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> the worst that can happen - and it will happen - is that users install the
> dpkg from bpo. And we now from the past that nearly every dpkg upgrade had
> unwanted side effects.
Justify your assertion. This is the same dpkg that wheezy users have
upgraded to and it has not caused any major problem. Some people complains
about new warnings but that's all.
We take care of getting dependencies straight in dpkg. We take
compatibility seriously. We ensure that upgrades paths are tested (and we
take care of downgrade too, allowing it or forbidding it depending on
whether it's safe to do it or not).
And I'm available to fix any major problem by releasing a modified
backport if required.
This looks like random bashing of our work without any good justification.
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/