On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 03:53:18PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:09:53PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If backports are officially included by default, then they are pure. Otherwise not.
[ advertising for blends package snipped :-) ]
...and if that happens, I stop working on "Debian Pure Blends" and start working on a new concept: Debian Sane Blends!ROFL!However, in how far is using backports insane for a poject which depends from a certain piece / version of software?
I do not mean to imply that backports are insane for those needing them. What IMO would then be insane is what is purely Debian.Currently I find Debian to be quite reliable. As a package maintainer I have a relatively limited, yet flexible, set of branches (or suites or whatever they are currently called) that are "official".
Backports.org (that's the ones we are talking about here, right?) are recompilations done by "some developer" - not necessarily the same that maintains the package. And recompilations may build-depend on other backported packages, making it essentially a *different* testing area, not a subset of the official testing.
I therefore fear not only for the "Debian Pure Blends" concept, but for the sanity of maintaining packages in Debian in general, if backports are considered "officially part of Debian". We should instead split Debian into sections that are matured and declared stable in different paces - but that has been tried several times before and is a difficult change to make, not technically but politically...
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature