On Tue, 06 May 2014, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: 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? I already stated a few times that packages like that are not acceptable for backports. Longer reasoning can be found for example in the php5 thread. In short: those packages are not probable testable, updateable and so on. Alex
Attachment:
pgpWE4NvXSeSc.pgp
Description: PGP signature