* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:04:03 +0100]:
> The answer also depends on the understanding of "officially supported".
> By definition, backports are not part of a release and can never get the
> same level of support as a stable release gets, like upgrade tests (we
> already don't support upgrades from n-2 to n, we'll never be able to
> promise an upgrade path for arbitrary combinations of stable+backports).
Related to this:
18:01 <dato> nobse: well; IMHO a certain suite in ftp.debian.org needs the
support that the project compromises to. e.g., Debian
says "stable is security-supported, unstable is not", and
"testing may lack packages at some point in time". nobody
forces us to say "the 'backports' suite is supported by
the Security Team", though it'd be good to say at least
"security support 'backports' will happen by pulling the
fixes from the testing or testing or unstable distributions"
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Q: How do Debian developers play Russian rulette?
A: Everone contributes a key revocation certificate and chooses a number
from one to ten. Then everybody executes a random generator - if it's a
match, then his revocation certificate is submitted to the keyservers.
-- seen on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
