Hi, On 24.09.2014 14:41, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> FYI I intend to upload a backport of Apache 2.4, because we're going >> to need it for deploying the next FusionForge on Wheezy. >> >> I'll use this method: >> https://wiki.debian.org/BuildingFormalBackports#Self-contained_example_for_Apache_2.4 > did you talked with the apache maintainers in advance? If not please do so > and ask them what they think about such a backport. personally I do not mind either way but I'd never take the burden to maintain that backport. About the decision itself, it is something the backport ftpmasters need to decide upon, not us. However, as Jan said in the other mail backporting Apache 2.4 to Wheezy is a heavy invasive package that has a few hundred reverse dependencies, that won't work with a backport package as ABIs and APIs are incompatible, and the packaging has changed. To give you an idea: [1] has a list of packages that are instantly RC-buggy without a side backport, and [2] is a list of packages, that may or may not break in one way or another. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=apache24transition;users=debian-apache@lists.debian.org;archive=both [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=apache24webapptransition;users=debian-apache@lists.debian.org;archive=both -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature