Bug#691651: enabling wheezy-backports by default (Re: Backports integrated into the main archive
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#691651: enabling wheezy-backports by default (Re: Backports integrated into the main archive
- From: Thomas Goirand <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:26:43 +0800
- Message-id: <5160F583.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Thomas Goirand <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20130406102615.GC9525@loar>
- References: <email@example.com> <20130403015911.GA4165@p12n.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <515D11F7.email@example.com> <20130406102615.GC9525@loar>
On 04/06/2013 06:26 PM, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Control: tags -1 +patch
> Thomas Goirand:
>> While activating backports by default can be discussed forever, I'm
>> quite sure that adding an option in our installer so that having
>> backports activated is just one click away would be a nice option to
>> have, always. Has this been considered?
> The attached patch adds backports support to apt-setup. I've done a
> successful installation using the resulting udebs.
> It could be improved in two ways:
> * Add support for previous release: the installer has usually
> been able to install oldstable nicely. The generator could
> exit or setup backports.debian.org if squeeze is installed.
> * Reduce code duplication: 93backports is almost a duplicate
> of 92updates. Both should probably be merged in a single
> I only took a shot at this because I got tired of the discussion on
> debian-backports@. I'm leaving anyone more interested to catch the ball.