Hi, Michael Meskes wrote (09 May 2011 08:36:25 GMT) : > There is no reason to push vbox into s-p-u with fixes for a > backports kernel.
Ack. > Instead I would prefer the current vbox version being backported to > squeeze as you suggest in here: >> 2. Current testing packages are trivial to backport for Squeeze, and >> the backported -dkms package builds nicely against 2.6.38 headers. >> On the other hand, I'm aware committing to maintain such backports >> on the long run involves quite more work. Do you intend, as a team, >> to maintain Virtualbox 4.x in squeeze-backports during the Squeeze >> life-cycle? > In general yes, we did so for lenny, but I'm not sure when/if I find > the time doing this in the near future. To be honest it does not > really involve that much work. Is there, by chance, something a non-DD can do to help this happening, aside of backporting it myself using dch + pbuilder and reporting it's trivial? Bye, -- intrigeri <[email protected]> | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc | Who wants a world in which the guarantee that we shall not | die of starvation would entail the risk of dying of boredom ? _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://boum.org/mailman/listinfo/tails-dev
