Hi,
Michael Meskes wrote (09 May 2011 08:36:25 GMT) :
> There is no reason to push vbox into s-p-u with fixes for a
> backports kernel.
Ack.
> Instead I would prefer the current vbox version being backported to
> squeeze as you suggest in here:
>> 2. Current testing packages are trivial to backport for Squeeze, and
>> the backported -dkms package builds nicely against 2.6.38 headers.
>> On the other hand, I'm aware committing to maintain such backports
>> on the long run involves quite more work. Do you intend, as a team,
>> to maintain Virtualbox 4.x in squeeze-backports during the Squeeze
>> life-cycle?
> In general yes, we did so for lenny, but I'm not sure when/if I find
> the time doing this in the near future. To be honest it does not
> really involve that much work.
Is there, by chance, something a non-DD can do to help this happening,
aside of backporting it myself using dch + pbuilder and reporting it's
trivial?
Bye,
--
intrigeri <intrigeri@???>
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
| Who wants a world in which the guarantee that we shall not
| die of starvation would entail the risk of dying of boredom ?
