On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Arno Töll wrote: > 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. Yeah, but we are only some stupid ftp masters. Therefore the input of the maintainers is really appreciated. > 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. Given that configuration files are incompatible too, we should maybe avoid that backport. Alex
Attachment:
pgpXvkWJjMgvY.pgp
Description: PGP signature