Re: Packages rename and conffiles
Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Packages rename and conffiles"):
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:28:34AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The ideal solution would be a general arrangement that ensured that
> > upgrades from release A to B were always done with the package
> > management system from B (backported, presumably).
> So are you planning to provide such a backport ? Without it we will have
> to investigate others solutions.
In the case of dpkg the problem of producing the backport is
reasonably straightforward, I think. I'd be happy to give it a go.
apt and the stack above it is more difficult, but in the context of
conffile processing only dpkg is relevant.
It would be still easier if the dpkg and apt maintainers would
restrict themselves to Build-Depend only on things in current stable.
The difficult part it seems to me is shipping the backport somewhere
and arranging for the upgrade process to use it. Great as
backports.org is I assume we don't want to make it part of the
official upgrade path :-).