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

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

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 07. November 2011:

> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 07. November 2011:
> > > I can easily tweak the .changes files to only upload dpkg-dev and
> > > libdpkg-perl.
> > > 
> > > Would you be ready to try this?
> > Do we have an upgrade way to the new version that its unstable soon? I don't
> > want an old version without updates in bpo.
> The landing of multiarch has almost no impact on dpkg-dev and
> libdpkg-perl. So if you want backports to follow the successive versions
> of dpkg-dev/libdpkg-perl that will reach testing, it's perfectly possible,
> yes.
> The only caveat is that the next version of dpkg-dev depends a new perl
> module (libfile-fcntllock-perl). We can either backport this module
> too or I can revert this specific change (it's a single self-contained
> commit):
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=d834b77b5d16e453b32bd36bbb5487c910e54280
I don't see a problem in backporting libfile-fcntllock-perl. But as mira
stated you have to adjust the rules and control files so that every buildd
build only dpkg-dev and the perl lib. Are you willing to do that?

Alexander Wirt, formorer@formorer.de 
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA  B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

Reply to: