Re: Options for backporting s3ql package?
Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> writes:
> 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
Thanks for chiming in. Just to make sure I understand: A backport of
1.16 would have been ok at the time that 1.16 was in testing, but was no
longer possible after 2.0 was uploaded to testing?
I'm confused because it seems to me that the eventual outcome would have
been the same - version 1.16 in backports, and (shortly after) a
different, newer version in testing.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
Reply to: