On 14/08/10 11:14, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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?

I'm not quite sure what you mean... If I can make life easier for
someone trying to backport a package to stable with reasonable effort, I
will. I will not, however, spend any effort in making life easier for
someone trying to backport to oldstable. Same for ubuntu releases (which
generally, although not always, tend to be >= debian stable in terms of
package versions).

Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to