Re: Backports for fglrx and chromium-browser (and two dependencies)
Hi,
Cyril Lavier wrote:
> On 06/19/2011 04:19 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:51:56 +0200 Alexander Wirt wrote:
> >
> >> Giuseppe Iuculano schrieb am Sunday, den 19. June 2011:
> >>
> >>> On 06/19/2011 03:30 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >>>> I've prepared squeeze backports for fglrx and chromium-browser (and
> >>>> gyp and libv8 dependencies). Would anyone be so kind as to review and
> >>>> upload if these look good?
> >>>
> >>> * allow squeeze's libvpx0 0.9.1 to satisfy dependencies (spot-checked
> >>> some webm videos and they seem to work just fine with this older version).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Don't do this, please. chromium 11 needs libvpx0>= 0.9.6, see #618621
> > All of the links in that bug report seem to work ok. I wonder if
> > that was just some backwards compatibility lost in version 10's
> > development and fixed later.
> >
> >> for a complex beast like chromium I would prefer to have either the original
> >> maintainer or a really experienced debian developer as maintainer of the
> >> backport.
> >>
> >> Probably we would reject the package if we are not sure if the
> >> uploader/maintainer isn't able to handle it.
> > Personally, I see no problem handling this. It will just be a matter
> > of keeping up with the numerous updates that fix lots of security issues.
> >
> > Perhaps Guisseppe can volunteer to mentor/watch my work. He's seen my
> > work elsewhere, so maybe he will vouch for me. I've also been on the the chromium packaging team for a while now (following bugs/commits). I just
> > haven't had time to work on any of its bugs to get myself in the uploaders
> > field yet.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> Hi Michael.
>
> Apparently, I was too slow this time :).
>
> I worked on a backport of chromium-browser for some weeks now, and since
> it became available on testing, I started to correct some bugs I've had
> (I've made the package available on my own repository :
> http://ddb.davromaniak.eu).
>
> So as to not make problems with your work, I will delete all the work
> I've done on this backport (it will free some disk space on my GIT
> server ;) ).
>
> By the way, on your source package, I see something a bit disturbing,
> you are not changing the binary package names, as on Debian stable, the
> chromium package is related to the games (a dummy package which prepares
> the migration to chromium-bsu, and permit a switch from chromium-browser
> to chromium in testing), I've worked on this package for some days
> because of this name change and the changes it needed on the debian
> folder. So I think for a backport, it's cleaner to use the stable name
> convention, than the testing name convention.
I hadn't thought about that. So I assume you did away with the
transitional chromium-browser and chromium-browser-inspector packages,
and renamed chromium to chromium-browser and chromium-inspector to
chromium-browser-inspector?
> Giuseppe sure has better knowledge than me on this point, so he can
> figure out what's the best practice on this.
>
> Also, I had to backport the binutils-gold package to be able to compile
> the package without problems, I've talked about that in a thread called
> "Maybe binutils needs a backport" in May.
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2011/05/msg00077.html)
I figured it best to avoid the experimental linker altogether, and I'm
using standard binutils instead.
> As Giuseppe said earlier in this thread, libvpx0 >= 0.9.6 is needed, so
> I backported it.
For my packages, that doesn't seem to be needed. Maybe that bug was a
temporary problem between 10 and 11 or maybe a binutils-gold issue.
> To finish, just for information, all the work I've done is here :
> http://www.davromaniak.eu/vrac/chromium_backport/
>
> If you think there are some usefull things to reuse or to inspirate
> from, don't hesitate to use it, if not, just ignore this link ;).
Thanks, I'll review your work.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: