On 11-06-24 at 03:02pm, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 02:21:10PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > ...and 7(!) comments to that post, all made within one day, > > These were written after I looked there and wrote my mail. Ah, point taken. I didn't realized it was all this new. > > points to the alternative approach of using backported packages for > > stable, and experimental packages for testing/unstable. > > > > Seems very much like light at the end of the tunnel to me. > > Well, not really. I was asking for testing/unstable. If you > look at > > http://mozilla.debian.net/dists/wheezy/ > > there is only 3.6 and there is nothing for sid at all. So having the > latest Firefox backported somehow is nice, hiding it at some other place > than backports.debian.org is questionable but there might be reasons for > this I can not see. But I wonder in how far this leads to the > assumption that we will soonish see a recent firefox in the development > tree? Instead of exploring the subdirectories of that site, try at the front page http://mozilla.debian.net/ to select "unstable", "Iceweasel" and "4.0" and you will see that they suggest that you use experimental. Yes, they use their own backporting repository rather than backports.debian.org. I do not know specifically why the mozilla service is constructed the way it is, but generally it is my experience that collaborative backporting efforts have some benefits, while total control over a backporting effort has other benefits. I consider *any* backporting as unofficial and as "contamination" of a Debian system - even if repository is hosted at a debian.org domain. - 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