On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > > > Can I put the package in stable-proposed-updates anyway? > > > > I don't think that's productive. It's probably a lot more productive to use > > your energy to bring the existence of www.backports.org (which has 7.4.2 > > backports available for i386) to the attention of PostgreSQL upstream and > > the users experiencing problems with stable's 7.2.1. > > FWIW: Full ack. > > Using s-p-u for that would nullify the security update. Please don't do > that.
Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be
accepted for woody) is a good one. If I understood Martin Pitt's
explanation correctly, the postgresql upstream doesn't lightly perform
third-level updates such as the one from 7.2.1 to 7.2.4.
I don't know what the actual policy they apply regarding what kinds of
bugfixes can go in such an update looks like; however, if it is (more or
less) the same as the one Debian applies to stable updates (i.e., only
patches to fix security holes, bugs that make the thing useless or
mostly so, bugs that might cause data loss/corruption, or bugs that
might break unrelated packages and/or the whole system), I don't see why
it shouldn't be accepted.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
