On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:54:23 +0100 Stéphane Glondu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jan Wagner a écrit : > > My intention of the my "rant" was just, to avoid to leave unmainted > > versions on backports.org, which is not, what the users expect. If > > you want to have an impression, have a look on the older[1] and the > > outdated[2] packages. > > My "rant" would be about your decision to backport a recent version of > dh-ocaml without contacting the original maintainers. > > As said elsewhere, keeping an "old" version of dh-ocaml in the > backports was done *on purpose*, because versions >= 0.9 of dh-ocaml > introduce very intrusive changes in the packaging workflow/toolchain > not suitable for the backports. For example, I backported an "old" > version of camlbz2 *on purpose* because newer versions introduce > changes only in the packages not relevant for a backport. > > With your backport of dh-ocaml 0.9.3, you've just complicated the > backports of OCaml packages from now on. > And this is pretty much my point. There are numerous valid reasons for wanting something in lenny-backports that's newer than what's in lenny, but is not as new as the version in squeeze. Remember, people who are running stable are running it for a reason; even with backports, they don't necessarily want to be tracking the latest versions of packages. They presumably care about a specific feature that's not present in stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
