[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Backported an older version than unstable: qtcreator



Hi,

I would like to explain a situation with a backported package that I have done 
for a local proposes: qtcreator.

qtcreator now (May 2014) is a lightweight integrated development environment 
(IDE) developed with Qt. We have:

- in wheezy (stable) (devel): 2.5.0-2: amd64 armel armhf i386 ia64 kfreebsd-
amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390 s390x sparc

- in jessie (testing) (devel): 3.0.1+dfsg-1: amd64 armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-
amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390x

-in sid (unstable) (devel): 3.0.1+dfsg+exp-4: amd64 hurd-i386 i386 mips mipsel 
powerpc ppc64 s390x sparc 

3.0.1+dfsg-1 [debports]: alpha armel armhf hppa kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 
powerpcspe
2.8.1-3 [debports]: sh4 sparc64
2.5.0-2 [debports]: x32 

version 3.x needs Qt5
version 2.x needs Qt4

AFAIK checking the control files, if you want to backport it, you need to 
backport qt5.

In testing, last year we got version 2.8, that was the last one compatible 
with qt4.8 (in wheezy). 

I did a backport using the 2.8 version (for amd64), and it was relatively 
easy. I would like to push it to backports, but it doesn't follow the rule 
about backported a package from Testing. Well, it was in testing.

If the question is that if it's worthwhile to have it, because we have 2.5, 
the answer is yes, it has some stupids bugs (not retain cmake configuration in 
a project, for instance) solved in this version.

So, my question can I tried to ask to upload this package (sponsor needed) or 
simply, it doesn't follow the backport rules and it's not possible?

Best regards,

Leopold



-- 
--
Linux User 152692
Catalonia

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: