On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > Hi! > > Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert: > > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports. > > You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about > their reasoning, do you?
I believe I do. Backports are for recompilations of unstable packages for the stable releases. Hence, that's why it seems like a good solution here. volatile seems like it has a much more restrictive set of criteria, but I suppose it would also be a good solution if its allowable. I just realized that clamav actually went into volatile, and it was flasplugin-nonfree that went to backports. Anyway those two show the two roads already traveled. It's a matter of debating the best one for this case. Honestly, the ideal solution would be for either backports or volatile to become officially supported (which from what I can tell has been in discussion for a long time now). In fact, if one or the other did become official, there would be no need for both. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
