On So, 2005-11-13 at 19:05 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > It was imo just a matter of time when this problem would arise. The > fact is that we agreed that time that official backports are really > just recompilation of sources from the development branch. So if you > really want to have 'real' maintainer uploads to -backports, I'd > suggest working on a well written spec describing a clear policy what > is to be done when doing these uploads. This spec/proposal would > definitely need blessing from the technical board again.
Yes, that would be necessary in that case... but I don't care enough to write such spec... maybe jdong wants to ;) But I've talked to tseng and we came to the conclusion that it won't hurt to backport the complete mono stack... if it's done right! and not now but when we got all the latest stuff working together > Until this happens, I see no other choice than providing selected > packages in personal package archives. This would mean dubious 3rd > party archives again and the resulting problems with supporting our > users. :( There already exist such 3rd party repos that have latest banshee and dependencies > > Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets > > backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be > > braindead to me... and I won't like to do it > > what would you do when you need to update the package in > breezy-backports again? Imo this would be a nightmare, please don't. Don't worry... I'm not planning something that evil :) Bye
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
