Re: BinNMUing squeeze in squeeze-backports?
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:24:49 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while thinking “libdrm is trivial to backport”, I realized it's a bit untrue.
> libdrm-nouveau1 is replaced by libdrm-nouveau1a (upstream broke ABI).
>
> Reverse dependencies come from those packages:
> - libdrm obviously (-dev, -dbg),
> - mesa (but not in squeeze),
> - plymouth.
>
and xserver-xorg-video-nouveau, surely?
> Backporting libdrm to squeeze means no longer providing with the
> libdrm-nouveau1 package, and providing libdrm-nouveau1a instead.
>
Or, you could back out the ABI-breaking nouveau changes.
> This means plymouth becomes uninstallable, since it depends on the
> former. BinNMUing makes it build successfully against the latter. That
> was done in unstable already, I guess it's 1. feasible, and 2. wanted to
> do so in squeeze-backports as well, so that plymouth is installable along
> new libdrm. Thoughts?
>
I don't think it's reasonable/feasible. backports.d.o doesn't carry the
source for that package, so you'd need a source upload.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: