Re: Options for backporting s3ql package?
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> The wheezy s3ql package is currently at version 1.11. The version in
> >> testing and unstable is 2.8. Upstream (that's me) develops s3ql in two
> >> branches, a 1.x branch that's (by now) in maintenance mode, supports
> >> Python 2.7, and and receives only critical bugfixes, and 2.x branch that
> >> requires Python 3.3 and receives new features.
> >>
> >> Since the release of 1.11, several bugs have been found (see
> >> https://bitbucket.org/nikratio/s3ql/src/26a9028d3775bb0fa765a29c28fe364c193cfa44/Changes.txt?at=maint-1.x
> >> for a full list), and the current version of the 1.x branch is 1.18.
> >>
> >> I was wondering if it would be possible to provide a backport of 1.18
> >> for wheezy. I am willing to do the work, and there seems to me some user
> >> interest as well
> >> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=707184). However, the
> >> backported package version (1.18) will never enter testing or unstable,
> >> and backporting the 2.x branch isn't feasible because of the dependency
> >> on Python 3.3. Would that be a problem?
> >>
> >
> > I'm not a backports ftpmaster and I can't speak on their behalf, but
> > they've made it clear before that they won't accept packages into
> > backports that haven't first gone through testing (e.g. a backport of
> > a newer php 5.4 release was rejected for the same reason [1]). In
> > short... no.
>
> Well, up to version 1.16 the package has been in testing - it has just
> been updated to 2.x since then: http://snapshot.debian.org/binary/s3ql/
>
> Does that mean a backport of 1.16 would be okay?
No. The source for packages is testing. See for example the php discussion a
few months ago. Nothing has changed since then.
Alex - Backports ftpmaster
Reply to: