On Tue, 06 May 2014, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > A Dimarts, 6 de maig de 2014, Alexander Wirt va escriure: > > 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. > > > > Hi, > > I more or less understand the php5 issue, but this package has not > rdependencies, so no incompatibilities can image here. And if you find some bug in the backports version? > > Also, my question is, if I had done the package from testing (when it was > there) and then new version had entered in testing, the package had > disappeared from backports? No, its your task to update it. Alex
Attachment:
pgp2g649Jo_3I.pgp
Description: PGP signature