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

Bug#599184: marked as done (release-notes: section about backports.org not necessary?)

Your message dated Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:24:47 +0100
with message-id <20110111192447.GA3314@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#599184: [PATCH] Drop backports.org from 'upgrading' section
has caused the Debian Bug report #599184,
regarding release-notes: section about backports.org not necessary?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
599184: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=599184
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release-notes
Severity: normal
Tags: squeeze

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.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Jan  2, 2011 at 18:04:45 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:

> There doesn't seem to be necessary as lenny-bpo should upgrade cleanly
> to squeeze.
> 
> Bug#599184
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
> ---
>  en/upgrading.dbk |   26 --------------------------
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
committed in r8093.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: