Re: RFS: subversion (updated package) [lenny-backports, 1.6.12dfsg-1~bpo50+2]
On 2010-07-06 02:58, Michael Diers wrote:
> On 2010-07-03 05:54, Matt Taggart wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>> Just a couple comments based on the changelog, I haven't looked at the
> thanks a bundle for having a look.
>>>> subversion (1.6.12dfsg-1~bpo50+2) lenny-backports; urgency=medium
>>>> * Rebuild for lenny-backports.
>>>> * Disable ra_serf, need a newer version than the one in lenny.
>> How about backporting a newer serf instead so you don't have to lose the
>> functionality? As long as the build dependencies and dependencies are
>> versioned properly (and you know they already are) then everything will
>> just work at build time and run time. The BPO buildd's are also smart
>> enough to deal with it.
>> It looks like it backports cleanly with no changes.
>> (BTW if you run into a reason why the package doesn't build or run because
>> it needs a versioned build-dep/dep to the backport and also file a bug on
>> the package to have it added)
> Yes, that would be pretty easy to do. Previous 1.6.x lenny-backports did
> not require the updated serf, though. Not sure if it'a a good thing to
> introduce a new run-time dependency at this point in time.
>>>> * Build-depend on libdb4.6-dev, suggest db4.6-util.
>>>> * Build-depend on openjdk-6-jdk instead of gcj-jdk.
>>>> * Depend on openjdk-6-jre-headless instead of gij.
>> I think these probably make more sense than trying to backport all that
>> stuff (assuming everything still works OK with the older versions).
> Well, that's backports.org policy. Admittedly not the OpenJDK part, but
> the libdb4.6 bit. One blends in with the "stable" run-time environment.
>>>> * control: Fix version control URLs.
>> I wouldn't bother fixing these for the backport.
> OK, but then again the backport changes are in a different branch than
> the "testing" source. Moreover, the bpo50+1 version control URLs were
> wrong. And I had to touch debian/control anyway. So there :)
Dear mentors and backporters,
here's another attempt at soliciting sponsorship for my update to the
Subversion package in lenny-backports.
As it stands, the package is a straightforward update to my previous
backport 1.6.9dfsg-1~bpo50+1. Unless Matt's comments above are regarded
as critical, I kindly ask that the package be uploaded to backports.org.
Michael Diers, elego Software Solutions GmbH, http://www.elego.de