On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:42:01 +0100 Jan Wagner <waja@cyconet.org> wrote: > Hi Andres, Hi all, (sorry if this doesn't break into a new thread, I realise after writing the email I might not have replied it correctly). > On Friday 29 January 2010 17:38:29 Andres Salomon wrote: > > Jan Wagner <waja@cyconet.org> wrote: > > > <cite="http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute";>Before > > > uploading please think about how useful the package is for stable > > > users and if you want to support the package until support for the > > > distribution you uploaded ends.</cite> > > How is one meant to do this when a new major release adds twice as > > many dependencies as the older version? I don't think it's > > reasonable to expect people to fight an uphill battle like that. (trim) > You mentioned that dependencies may lead you into > a dependency-hell, cause the requirements may raise .... this is a > "risk" you have to think about, when uploading your first package to > bpo. Which introduces a question I've had about backports (which doesn't appear to be addressed on the website). What happens when a backport breaks dependancies of packages in stable? Is there something that can happen? The packges I'm thinking of specifically are bzrtools[1] and bzr-builddeb. The following packages have unmet dependencies: bzrtools: Depends: bzr (< 1.6~) but 2.0.2-1~bpo50+1 is to be installed Does this "simply" call for those packages to be backported by someone who needs them? kk [1] seems i'm not the first to ask about this: http://lists.backports.org/lurker-bpo/message/20090611.083220.4ef41dee.en.html -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature