On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070415 21:01]: > > I think testing already supports that to some extent, and that the bits > > where it does not can be worked on. Creating another branch does not > > seem like something useful to me. > > but it is requested a LOT by people who have to run stable (huge) > installations with some new apps on top. php is a popular > candidate to have from backports on a lot of big german hosters, > for example. If they could help somehow they would, as debian is > dominating the market completly and this is a very common > problem.
why the obsession with backports? contrary to popular belief and self-delusion, 'stable+backports' is NO LONGER STABLE. the only 'advantage' to using 'stable+backports' over 'stable+some packages from unstable or testing' is that you don't have that nasty label 'unstable'. to get that crucially important 'benefit', you're using packages from a repository with unsigned packages by unknown maintainers. IMO, if you need a 'stable' system with some newer packages, you're better off learning how apt's pinning stuff works than bothering with backports. it's not hard. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Religion is the work of the Devil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]