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.