Cyril Brulebois schrieb am Monday, den 27. June 2011: > Hi, > > here's an update. team@bpo added to Cc for the part inside <Q> tags. *snip* > I'm wondering whether the following approach would look reasonable from > a backports policy point of view: > - backport “common”[1] drivers to squeeze-backports, built against > squeeze-backports' server, > - do not backport non-“common” (all other) drivers to squeeze-backports. > > 1. Those listed on this page: > http://pkg-xorg.alioth.debian.org/reference/squeeze-backports.html > > That would have the following effects: > - meta packages (xserver-xorg-{input,video}-all) would need no updates; > - installing common drivers along with the new graphics stack would > require removing non-common drivers (which would be built against, > and depending on the old server), along with the aforementioned > metapackages; > > In other words: only people using common drivers would be able to > upgrade their graphics stack. Others could still request a backport of a > specific driver if they need/want it; and then we would add drivers on a > case by case basis, which is far better than doing a bulk upload of 50 > drivers. > > I realize being unavailable to keep all packages co-installable isn't > ideal, but I can't think of a better way. (Also, it should be noted that > the lists of drivers available in squeeze and in sid aren't exactly the > same anyway, so there's no way to guarantee each driver can be > upgraded.) > *snip*
> Thoughts? I don't have a clue about the technical details, but from a backports perspective this seems to be a good compromise and a real benefit for our users. So I would say: go ahead. Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
