Re: Useless PHP backports
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I've noticed several "backports" where the package merely consists of a
> couple of PHP scripts and the backport contains *no* difference besides
> a changelog entry ("rebuild for sarge") and a changed version number.
> Shouldn't there be a rule that a backport should at least contain a
> functional difference to the version being backported from?
No, why? For stable users, it's a lot easier to get a required php
package from bpo where they know it will work on stable, than getting it
themself from unstable and testing it themself. That would be a waste of
effort on the user site, imho.
> I know
> that this doesn't do any harm, but it seems to be a waste of effort and
> attention.
Why? If you don't use/need/want it, ignore it? :)
> Examples:
>
> php-net-imap
> php-net-sieve
> php-net-socket
These specific three backports can be removed anyway. Sebastian Harl
backported kolab once, where these three packages are dependencies for.
However, the kolab backport never made it into the archive, because
Steffen Joeris came up with doubts about the general packaging state of
the Debian packages (he considers them to be not ready for endusers),
which makes the backporting useless (in his opinion).
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to: