[Pkg-mailman-hackers] Should we support backporting?

[Siggy Brentrup]

--w/VI3ydZO+RcZ3Ux
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:17:45AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>=20
> > Regarding Bug #223348 the question arises wether we should support
> > backporting to woody.
>=20
> If we can without too much hassle, we should. Something good not being
> required doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

OK, it looks like I'm the only one not caring about backports; so
*somebody else please step in*: XX_po-debconf_hack.dpatch is still in
debian/patches, but it doesn't integrate cleanly with
svn-buildpackage.

> As administrator of a machine running Woody, I feel everyday how much
> more convenient "out-of-the-box" backporting is.

Depending on how many backports you use, you give up the benefits of
security.d.o, the only reason I see for still running woody. All
non-critical machines I administer are running sarge.

Thanks
=2E Siggy

--w/VI3ydZO+RcZ3Ux
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAYrkr94B/SGO8KQcRAnZbAJ47c3blDRt7b6Bi6IRheOaNX/ivewCg0qvv
akNE6SM1ViGIKn5MF2PHFqU=
=/4WU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--w/VI3ydZO+RcZ3Ux--