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

Re: dpkg_1.16.1.1~bpo60+1_i386.changes REJECTED

intrigeri schrieb am Wednesday, den 02. November 2011:

> Raphael Hertzog wrote (02 Nov 2011 15:32:39 GMT) :
> > Well, I prepared this upload to make it easier to prepare other backports.
> [...]
> > Given that debhelper depends on dpkg-dev >= 1.16.1 and that many packages
> > already start using debhelper compat level 9 in order to support hardening
> > build flags, I think it's important to have the latest dpkg-dev available.
> FWIW, I asked Raphaël a few days ago about his timing for this
> backport (that was announced on -devel [1]) for this very reason:
> this version of dpkg not being available in the backports repository
> is the only reason that blocks me from replacing hardening-wrapper
> with the new dpkg -based hardening build flags in packages I maintain.
> I wholeheartedly understand, and support, Gerfried's concerns about
> not making the backports troublesome. I feel Raphael explained why
> this specific backport should not bring trouble. I volunteer to run
> this backported dpkg on a few Squeeze boxes for some time, before it's
> accepted into the backports repositories, in case such real-life
> testing can help.
IMHO he told us why we should expect trouble. Don't expect us ftpmasters to
ever accept a dpkg for bpo (I will write an extended answer in the next days,
but don't hold your breath on it). We are telling since years that people
shouldn't run after every new debhelper/dpkg/whatever feature if you want
your package to be easily backportable. People don't want to hear, so here we

Alex - backports ftpmaster

Reply to: