[Pkg-virtualbox-devel] Squeeze vs. Linux 2.6.38 + Virtualbox

[intrigeri]

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 at boum.org>
  | 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 ?