On Do 10 Okt 2013 03:50:33 CEST, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Mike Gabriel dijo [Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 09:25:31PM +0000]: Yes, I completely want to get the Owncloud server package going. I was thinking: in case some of the dependencies is too complicated to package, would it be acceptable un-removing it from the provided upstream tarball? I perfectly understand we try to reduce code duplication in our main archive, but introducing i.e. five packages in Backports as a justification for not removing what upstream already provides (and knowing for sure nothing else in Stable depends on said library) is not such a clear gain for me. And besides, given the version will be the same as the version in testing, once testing gets stabilized, the dependencies will be correctly fulfilled → No broken systems for our users. Opinions?
For the libjs-* part my opinion is: packaging JS related projects for jessie nowadays includes a certain tool chain (nodejs, node-uglifyjs, coffeescript, etc.). I will try to provide the minimal set of tools in wheezy-backports in this context. Once the basic tools are there, other people will have an easier job backportings JS projects to wheezy.
In general, I prefer clean backporting workflows, means: taking packages from testing and making them build / install as is on stable. The changes should be as little as possible. So basically, that's a -1 here, I guess.
Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby fon: +49 (1520) 1976 148 GnuPG Key ID 0x25771B31 mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb
Attachment:
binV5mulibc9Z.bin
Description: =?utf-8?b?w5ZmZmVudGxpY2hlciA=?= =?utf-8?b?UEdQLVNjaGzDvHNzZWw=?=
Attachment:
pgpDKuChV3AEW.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur