On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> When using a backports package, the breakage is confined to that > >> package. When pulling in newer libs aswell, it might be that some > >> totally unrelated part of the system, e.g. another service on that host, > >> breaks because of a change of behaviour in that library that is not > >> triggered by the application for which I upgraded it. > > all very good in theory. > > the trouble with theory is that in theory, theory and practice are the > > same...but in practice, they're not. practice trumps theory every time, > > because it's what actually happens rather than what someone thinks might > > happen. > If you're so keen on practice, can you show any examples of breakages in > backports, and explain how they would have been avoided by just > installing the package and its dependencies from testing or unstable? Not that I agree with Craig's point, but you seem to be missing it here: AFAICS, the argument is not that backports are broken, but that they're a waste of time. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
