Re: Backports - Best practise (or something similar)
Frank Küster wrote:
> 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).
There are only very, very few packages which do not work with xorg when
compiled against xfree. Afaik, non of them is in bpo (except the kde bpo
seems to have a problem with one or two libraries, but that seems to be
fixed in 3.5.2 which I hopefully finish soon).
> 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
> backports.org.
I personally don't mind the 'more work' to backport every package from
it's 'specific' chroot (i don't use pbuilder), as I reset it to plain
sarge after every package anyways. As I use the backports I make myself,
I absolutely don't want any additional backports on the system which are
not needed, otherwise, frankly said, I could go for etch :)
> 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?
No, doesn't work :(
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to: