Hi!
* Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com> [2010-06-29 21:50:31 CEST]:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:58:11 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > Am 29.06.2010 17:24, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> >
> > > No, my proposal is to move the package to a better home: backports.
> >
> > You don't know the current policies WRT packages in backports and about
> > their reasoning, do you?
>
> I believe I do. Backports are for recompilations of unstable packages
> for the stable releases.
Thanks for excellently stating that you do *not* know about what is
backports about and for, you couldn't have done that better.
Also, weren't it you who responded to a mail about getting the security
tracker informations straight that it is too much of trouble for you to
check backports informations, too? I fail to see how that would get
better if you want to push more stuff into backports?
> Honestly, the ideal solution would be for either backports or volatile
> to become officially supported (which from what I can tell has been in
> discussion for a long time now). In fact, if one or the other did become
> official, there would be no need for both.
Also, you seem to know pretty little about volatile, it seems. Can you
please check the things you talk about before you are spreading false
statements just as they were facts?
And no, the scope of volatile and backports is pretty much different,
none of them would obsolete the other.
Thanks,
Rhon*please do your homework*da
--
"Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder
Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte."
-- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100629202505.ga8...@anguilla.debian.or.at
