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

Re: submitting backported ntfs-3g ?

On Tuesday 02 January 2007 23:49, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:

> > that it is conforming to the guidelines[0] and that you agree to
> > maintain the backport (e.g. fixing and responding to bugs on this
> > mailing list, as well as keeping the backport up2date).
> Thanks.
> I'll have to check whether I am using something from bpo that is not
> "absolutely necessary". 

Of packages mentioned in the control file, I have the following from 
backports-org :


libfuse-dev (considered necessary as version number is explicitly mentioned)

Pre-depends: fuse-utils (same notice applies)
Depends: debconf

The dpkg -I command shows some more dependencies arising from 
${shlibs:Depends}. None are from bpo. There is a strange version name 
discrepancy for libc6:

$ LANG=C apt-cache policy libc6
  Installed: 2.3.2.ds1-22
  Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge4
  Version Table:
     2.3.2.ds1-22sarge4 0
        500 ftp://ftp.ie.debian.org sarge/main Packages
 *** 2.3.2.ds1-22 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Is there anything I should change to satisfy bpo requirements? Should I 
install the exact debian version of libc6 ? ("aptitude upgrade" won't install 
it but an express "aptitude install libc6" apparently will). Should I 
downgrade debhelper and/or pkg-config to sarge versions?

I would really NOT like to have to test with sarge versions of fuse-related 
packages. The maintainer probably knew what he was doing.

Yours, Mikhail Ramendik

Reply to: