In <[🔎] AANLkTin9Bpb_W2FTgpkFQPzZJ7RWYbzEDsvJOWQkROPj@mail.gmail.com>, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: >I just realised, the packages I'm complaining about are essentially >squeeze backports. That is, they're packages that the packager wishes >could have gone into squeeze but can't because of the freeze, so they >go into experimental instead. > >Would it make sense then to start $x-backports as soon as $x gets >frozen? That makes a lot of sense to me. Heck, it might even useful before then; packages with lots of dependencies involved in separate transitions can take quite a while to move from unstable to testing. If a backport was provided built against the deps. in testing instead of unstable that had relatively few source package changes[1], you'd effectively get *more* testing of packages before they arrived in testing. [1] Sometimes a backport is just a matter of bumping the package version and building under a different chroot. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.