Marc Haber wrote: > rdiff-backup being written in pythion does not make backporting and > forwardporting any easier.
I beg to differ. Backporting rdiff-backup is easy and was done by me for the sarge-backports suite on backports.org in the past. For etch-backports, there are currently disagreements and a lack of a policy if/when/why packages are 'allowed' to be uploaded to etch-backports. Once this is setteled, I'll upload a backport for etch there. > I would like to ask to have multiple rdiff-backup packages in Debian > so that interoperability between different Debian OSses and even > between non-Debian and Debian OSses can be achieved. Not even being > compatible between Debian stable and unstable is not acceptable, IMO. As you can read in the BTS of rdiff-backup, I went with the development version to not have to keep a pile of patches arround which got applied in the development tree. Once 1.2 branch will be released, I'll stick with that branch on unstable/testing (as said on the BTS too). Unfortunately, upstream did not manage to open stable 1.2 branch in the meanwhile. > Please advise how you intend to address this issue which comes up > repeatedly once in a while. As said on the BTS and pointed out above again, my 'advise' is to use the same rdiff-backup version on the client and the server; and to use backports in case any of the two machines are running stable. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
