On Wednesday 18 November 2015 10:49:23 Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> Thanks for the fruitful discussion so far.
:)
> my responses are more in general than package specific.
Thank s for your explanations.
> > I'm not comfortable asking release team for that because I no longer use
> > 2.2 and therefore I'm unable to vouch for its suitability for "stable".
> >
> > This is actually one of my reasons for backporting -- I do not want to
> > replace current version in stable but I want to offer a newer (but not
> > bleeding edge) version from backports.
>
> Then this is actually one of our reasons for rejecting the backport:
> You no longer use it but want to make it available for users of stable,
> out of bounds. That's definitely not what backports is for.
I doubt that checking whether I use backport (or not) is a part of
consideration. I understand and accept what backports is for.
> Users of backports benefit from updates that contain newer features for
> them. That's the main reason for why backports exist. If you upload
> maintenance updates to backports they won't contain newer features, will
> they? It's a maintenance update to an LTS version, and thus it should
> belong in stable proper. backports is not the place for bug fixes for
> packages in stable.
Makes sense.
> Point release updates aren't part of backports. :)
I got it, I got it. :)
> I'm sorry, but having an out of bounds package in backports is no
> option for this situation.
I'm not arguing. Point taken.
> If 2.4 is good enough I personally don't see any reason to not offer it
> through backports if users might want to use it.
I might do just that, thanks.
> > Calligra is a brilliant example of such limitation -- its stable version
> > is not for Debian "stable" due to large number of changes; the only
> > backporting candidate is QT4-based therefore not suitable for "testing"
> > and "unstable"; QT5 version is yet-to-be-released and most likely will
> > not be suitable for backports due to massive changes in dependency
> > libraries.
>
> Hmm, I see QT 5 in stable too? The QT4 vs QT5 argument got me confused
> here, and I'm curious: Are there "just" some libraries missing for QT5
> which aren't in jessie already, or is the QT5 version in jessie
> otherwise unsuitable?
It does not matter because there is no Calligra release that can be build
with QT5 yet.
Moreover it is not just about QT5 itself: there are many QT5 dependency
libraries of Calligra that are not in Jessie as their QT5 flavours were only
recently introduced...
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Problems are not stop signs, they are guidelines.
-- Robert H. Schuller
.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.