On 24/01/13 07:48, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> [2013.01.24.2017
> +1300]:
>>> And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's
>>> knees because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the
>>> configuration cannot be automatically migrated, and all the
>>> power users on #debian-devel persuade you to backport it, what
>>> do you do?
>>
>> Backport it. Thats one of the points backports is for. I would
>> actually ask wth 2.2 wasn't backported before.
>
> Because 2.0 drops a feature you need and introduces some bugs.
> Also, the configuration needs a lot of manual work to
> migrate.</hypothetical>
It sounds as though in this situation, you'd either want foo-1 and
foo-2 to be parallel-installable (in which case they could coexist in
backports), or something technically similar to an Ubuntu PPA,
containing foo 1.x backports?
S
--
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/51012fca.8010...@debian.org
