On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:25:06AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Bad idea, actually, because sarge-p-u is supposed to hold potential > sarge updates and a backport doesn't meet the criteria for that.
Well, this is something that could be open for discussion, don't you think, but in any case, we need an official and preferably auto-built repository for this kind of things. > (Herbert did the same in woody-p-u with 2.4 backports, they had to be > removed before sarge at the price of some user confusion who had t-p-u > in their sources.list.) Well. The packages have smaller version than the sid ones, so there should be no such confusion. BTW, how are the mips/mipsel integration going ? Any chance to get those in for 2.6.12-7 ? Do you need any help or something ? Will you be in Oldenbourg this year ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
