On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:19:23AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On 14/08/10 05:40, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:42:28PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:On 13/08/10 15:15, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:Backporting a recent debhelper requires backporting dpkg which I wouldn't dare do...While I don't want to get in the dh/cdbs debate (I'm fine with either), this statement is not true. debhelper requires dpkg-dev >= 1.14.19, and stable has 1.14.29.If limiting to backports targeted stable, I completely agree.Yes. I don't consider supporting (or taking into account) releases older than stable worth the time of any developer (except, maybe, during the few months following a stable release).
Do you consider the "lenny" branch of backports.org part as part of "stable"?
Would you if that initiative was renamed to backports.debian.org? I would not.How about recompilation for e.g. latest stable release of Ubuntu. Is that "stable" too, or irrelevant?
Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers