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 :
Build-depends:
debhelper
pkg-config
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
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: