Am Montag, 14. Juli 2008 schrieb Ana Guerrero: > a) Use backports.org, i do not like this too much because: > > cons: > -you need to wait until package is in testing to backport it
That might not be a bad thing, because it ensures that the packages that you backport actually fit together and are synchronized and have had a minimal amount of public testing. > -packages go to NEW until they are hand approved Yes, but that is quite fast in my experience. > -users will fear to push more stuff than just KDE 4.1.x Backports are not automatically installed, so this fear is irrational (albeit not unreasonable). A lot of users use backports.org successfully. Which brings me to the main point: Many users are familiar with backports.org, and it has a semi-official status in the Debian community. So why not build on that? In fact, even if you choose not to use backports.org, someone else might end up doing backports.org backports anyway, because they prefer that infrastructure. Such divergence can be avoided. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
