Re: libburn/libisofs/libisoburn - point release, t-p-u or bpo
On Saturday, June 18, 2011 03:45:43 PM George Danchev wrote:
> Dear Release and Backports teams,
To correct my typos,
"t-p-u" in the subject to be read as "s-p-u" (stable proposed updates).
> Our libburnia packages (src:libburn/libisofs/libisoburn) in squeeze are
> rapidly getting way too old as compared to these found in sid and testing.
> The versions currently found in squeeze do not support JTE (jigdo Template
> Export), lack quite some other features, and does not violate ECMA-119
> when if might be argued to be appropriate, #630714.
> Rationale: squeeze is used on pettersson (cdbuilder host) and recently
> Kenshi Muto asked me to provide newer versions of libburnia to squeeze.
> Perhaps other Debian image building teams like (live- and cut-) would find
> that useful too, and of course we get more testing in return :-)
> To have all that support in squeeze, the jigit (libjte for JTE support)
> package should be backported too. The source package of jigit is in squeeze
> proper, but the newers versions from sid would introduce two more binary
> packages (libjte-dev and libjte1). We can of course backport libburnia
> stack to squeeze with the JTE support, but this would be a significant
"with JTE support" to be read as: "without JTE support".
> shortcut in my opinion.
> Also, unlike the versions curently found in squeeze, the packaging in sid
> switched from cdbs + debsrc 1.0 to dh + debsrc 3.0 (quilt). That won't
> introduce unsolvable issues in my opinion, will it?
> We will have new upstream release RSN, which mostly introduce corner case
> bugfixes. I think that having these reside in sid until they reach testing
> and then worry about backporting them to squeeze would be the right way to
> However, I'd rather ask in advance what would be the most appropriate way
> to have the libburnia stack from testing/sid offered for squeeze?
Sorry for the noise.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>