Orthogonal to the discussion, but: >> What is the argumentation against a backport of dpkg? > > Fear of breaking something, be it upgrades or something else. But I don't > generally buy this as we tend to encourage people to upgrade apt/dpkg > before doing upgrades anyway.
That's not quite what has been recommended for either lenny→squeeze or squeeze→wheezy: «apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; apt-get dist-upgrade» have been the recommended (and tested) procedures for these upgrades; yes the 'upgrade' step might include apt and dpkg but this is in contrast to etch→lenny, which was approximately «aptitude update; aptitude install aptitude; aptitude safe-upgrade; aptitude full-upgrade» (that is to upgrade the tools first and then upgrade the release). If the dpkg maintainers have strong feelings that dpkg should be upgraded first then please file a bug against the release notes so that this can be properly documented. Of course, we don't want to rely on this behaviour as people don't read the release notes and many still believe that all they need to do is a dist-upgrade in any case without any other care for udev, kernel, tools, two-step upgrades, … cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ [email protected] Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] GPG fingerprint BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
