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). -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers