Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I understand how this use case ends up falling through the cracks. But
> the backports infrastructure is not set up for maintaining original
> packages (which PG 8.2 would be become, without a references package in
> testing).
Uh.. so you are proposing to keep (revi
Markus Wanner wrote:
So, please, either decide to backport a Postgres major version and
continue to update it even if it gets dropped from testing *or* don't
backport it at all.
I understand how this use case ends up falling through the cracks. But
the backports infrastructure is not set up
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
As a matter of policy, backports are made from Debian testing. Continued
maintenance of PG 8.2 packages is not really backporting, since there is
nothing to backport from.
While that's certainly true, I think there's enough of a reason for an
exception. Otherwise
Joris Dobbelsteen wrote:
The good question would be for what reason they have removed the
backports package? Maybe shortage on maintainers?
As a matter of policy, backports are made from Debian testing.
Continued maintenance of PG 8.2 packages is not really backporting,
since there is nothing
Markus Wanner wrote:
Hi,
I'm running several productive servers on Debian etch (stable) with
Postgres 8.2 which has been in lenny (testing) and made available for
etch through the backports project [1]. Unfortunately, they
discontinued maintaining 8.2 and switched to 8.3 in testing and thus
