Re: backport of dpkg (>= 1.17.2) and apt (>= 0.9.16.1) for build profiles
Hi, Quoting Philipp Kern (2014-07-24 00:25:41) > so I think this would rather be a question for stable, than for backports? Maybe. We'd be equally (if not more) happy if SRM would reconsider their decision (expressed on #debian-release toward Helmut Grohne) that these patches are too intrusive for a stable update. > As I understand it, if this backport is in, and packages in the archive can > hence be modified to incorporate the new syntax, stable tooling will no > longer work with them? That is correct. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140725121938.4150.24302@hoothoot
Re: backport of dpkg (>= 1.17.2) and apt (>= 0.9.16.1) for build profiles
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:19:38PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Philipp Kern (2014-07-24 00:25:41) > > so I think this would rather be a question for stable, than for backports? > Maybe. We'd be equally (if not more) happy if SRM would reconsider their > decision (expressed on #debian-release toward Helmut Grohne) that these > patches > are too intrusive for a stable update. There are no decisions expressed on IRC, at most tendencies. Get them on the right list (debian-release@lists.d.o) and get them reviewed there. (Which never happened to far, aside Guillem's general question avoid feasibility, but without a patchset to consider.) Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
