Re: Backports - Best practise (or something similar)
Frank Küster wrote:
> But isn't the information a little contradictory?
I would like to refer to my mail here:
http://lists.backports.org/lurker/message/20060524.230248.938286cc.en.html
> Furthermore, I'm not sure whether it is actually a good idea to follow
> recommendation 5. It's fine if you don't need other backports as
> build-dependencies. But as soon as you need at least one, or even a
> couple of them, isn't it safer to keep a pbuilder tarball that is kept
> up-to-date with respect to backports.org, and build in that? Otherwise,
> I would have to manually make sure that the needed backports are
> available, and that they are up-to-date if needed.
rec. 5 means basically, that you should *not* compile every program e.g.
against xorg, or against kde from bpo: in this case, every user of that
backport would also be forced to install xorg/kde/$whatever at the same
time (same for every unneeded dependency upgrade).
> I would rather suggest to adjust build-depends (for example, if a
> package in etch has
ack, that is what i do too; where do you see any conflict with what i
said before?
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to: