Re: Options for backporting s3ql package?
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> 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.
You are expected to update the backport regulary. And how do you want to fix
bugs in your 1.16 version, without diverging from the 1.16 that was in
testing or uploading the 2.0 version?
If you want to stick to 1.16 you won't be able to fix things without
uploading something that wasn't in testing.
Alex
Reply to: