On 08/26/2015 10:29 PM, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> On 08/26/2015 09:35 PM, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> wrote:
>>>> at DebConf I promised Rhonda that I would send a patch for the website
>>>> to clarify a couple of instructions - and I apologize in advance, but
>>>> after searching for more than 30 minutes I just can't find in which VCS
>>>> the website for backports.debian.org is managed. I probably have a
>>>> severe case of tunnel vision right now, but if maybe somebody could
>>>> point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/formorer/backports.debian.org
>>
>> Many thanks. I wouldn't have expected this to be hosted at github,
>> but that explains why I didn't find it.
> Its just a mirror.
>>
>> I've created a pull request:
>> https://github.com/formorer/backports.debian.org/pull/4
> Your request is wrong. We never hat the requirement of merging changelog
> entrys.
Well, I was recently told that I made a mistake for my update
of the LXC package in wheezy-backports.
My initial backport of LXC from jessie to wheezy-backports
contained (after fixing a FTBFS on ia64):
lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+2) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6) unstable
Then there was a security update for LXC in jessie-security,
with the following entries:
lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1) jessie-security
lxc (1:1.0.6-6) unstable
My initial upload to mentors contained a backport with the
following versions in the changelog:
lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1) jessie-security
lxc (1:1.0.6-6) unstable
I was then told by Antonio Terceiro that I messed up the
changelog (see [1]) and that all the previous backports
versions should be included. So the current version that
was sponsored by Antonio contains a merged changelog of
the form: (see [2])
lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1) jessie-security
lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+2) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports
lxc (1:1.0.6-6) unstable
Since I made that mistake and this wasn't clear to me as
per the backporting instructions, I thought that I should
probably also update those to reflect this policy.
I also took a peak at the Linux kernel in wheezy-backports
and it does indeed contain this type of merging:
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/l/linux/changelog-3.16.7-ckt11-1%2Bdeb8u3~bpo70%2B1
But now you are telling me that this isn't the case?
I'm really very confused now. Which means that either
way the instructions should be updated in some way to
make the current policy clearer. I'll update my pull
request once I've received some clarification from you
on this issue.
Thanks,
Christian
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2015/07/msg00048.html
and especially
https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2015/07/msg00050.html
[2] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/l/lxc/changelog-1%3A1.0.6-6%2Bdeb8u1~bpo70%2B1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature