On Sun, 13 Oct 2013, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Please, think of the kitten and put actual backports (=build from the same > > upstream tarballs^w^wdebian packages, just modified as needed for the > > backport) of whats in jessie into wheezy-backports! > > > > It's good (not bad!) to have five more packages in backports, when they are > > clean and useful. > > Hello world, > > I have packaged most of what's needed to get the Ownloud webapp into > backports. I have done some of the uploads, but have kept most still > only on my dev machine (as I don't want to upload untested > packages... As I did the first time around). > > Right now, I'm finally down to the point of missing only three > packages: libjs-chosen, libjs-jquery-minicolors and libjs-pdf. Most > other packages worked successfully in Wheezy by just rebuilding the > packages in Testing. > > Now, as I said some mails ago... I am willing to package what's needd, > but I don't want to introduce the whole archive into Backports, > specially when dealing with packages *far* out of my > reach/understanding. > > The three packages I am missing build-depend (directly or indirectly) > on node.js — And that's a massive piece of software I don't want to be > responsible for! > > So, asking again this same question I am quoting: Would you agree if, > instead of repackaging those three packages (plus their zillion > dependencies) I un-remove them from the build process? Yes, that will > make the Backported package deviate slightly off the version in > Testing, but will keep it much more contained. I understand Node.js is > a massive piece of code+dependencies. I don't think thats acceptable. We don't want packages derive that much from testing. > The bottom line is, I am sure I'm not the only person who will find an > Owncloud backport very useful for Wheezy. I *do* commit myself to > doing a good test of the built package before uploading, but doing the > whole Node.js dance is way outside my scope. > > (...Or is there somebody willing to do that dance? If so, I could put > the backported packages temporarily into a personal repository, and > wait for the JS part to be ready) let me guesss: node.js is needed for compression of javascript files anywhere in your dependency chain? That has been resolved with using yui-compressor on wheezy in the past. Alex - backports ftpmaster
Attachment:
pgpl65hGdFJvi.pgp
Description: PGP signature