Re: Options for backporting s3ql package?
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?
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: