[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Backports - Best practise (or something similar)

Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net> wrote:

> 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).

That's a reasonable goal (as long as the package is *also* installable
with xorg from backports.org; if that is not the case, I'm not sure what
to prefer).

>> 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?

Hm, I would like to avoid a situation where I need to keep separate
build environments up-to-date, one for each source package that I
regularly backport, with only the specifically needed backports manually
installed, otherwise no backports.org in the sources.list (or pinned
down so that it won't be used).  I'd rather have one backports.org
tarball which I use with pbuilder for all builds targetted at

In an ideal case, it would install build-dependencies from sarge, unless
a versioned Build-Depends requires a version from backports.org - then
it would take that one.  I fear this isn't possible with pinning
currently, is it?

With multiple tarballs, the setup gets very complicated, I'll encounter
build failures and maybe even unusable packages.

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Reply to: