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

Re: Backports for fglrx and chromium-browser (and two dependencies)

On 06/19/2011 07:27 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:

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?
Yes, I renamed all the packages, and edited all the references in the debian folder (renaming files, etc...). 
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.
Maybe it's the best thing to do, but I didn't know how to do this, and for me, it was simple to backport binutils :). 
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.
No, the binutils-gold issue I had was it doesn't close it's file handlers, and uses all the file handlers needed.
I needed to backport to backport the libvpx because of the version needed for libvpx-dev, I declared a bug because the libvpx0 was not "versionned" (#627305). By the way, I've done this work barely 1 month ago, so I don't remember accurately why I needed to change the version. 
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.


Thanks.

Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: