[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#599184: release-notes: section about backports.org not necessary?

[ Full quote for debian-backports@ ]

Dear Debian backports team,

On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi,
> the current release notes contain:
>   <para>
>     The <literal>backports.org</literal> repository mainly contains packages
>     from <quote>testing</quote>, with reduced version numbers
>     so that the upgrade path from &oldreleasename; backports to
>     &releasename; still works.  However, there are a few backports
>     which are made from unstable: security updates, plus the following
>     exceptions: Firefox, the Linux kernel, OpenOffice.org, and X.Org.
>   </para>
>   <para>
>     If you do not use one of these exceptions, you can safely upgrade
>     to &releasename;.  If you use one of these exceptions, set the
>     <literal>Pin-Priority</literal> (see <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>apt_preferences</refentrytitle> <manvolnum>5</manvolnum> </citerefentry>)
>     temporarily to <literal>1001</literal> for all packages from &releasename;,
>     and you should be able to do a safe dist-upgrade too.
>   </para>
> The current versions of iceweasel, linux-2.6 and openoffice.org in
> lenny-bpo seem to be older than the versions in squeeze, and there is no
> X.Org backport afaik.  So maybe these paragraphs are not necessary?
> Adding Rhonda in cc for comments as bpo admin.

do you have some input on this?

Furthermore, a tad unrelated, I'd suggest to rename section "2.1.5.
backports.org/backports.debian.org" to "2.1.5. Debian Backports".

Kind regards
Phliipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: