Hi Guys, to make a long story short...
would it be ok, to use breezy updates for this? I mean, if it's in universe, we (MOTU) can handle this...obviously it should be done by someone who has the right mono knowledge. regards, \sh On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:25 +0100, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > 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 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
