Hi Gianfranco!
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 09:04:39AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello,
> >"Do not make any changes to the packaging unrelated to backporting.
> > Keep the diff between the testing and the backports versions as
> > minimal as possible."
>
> while I agree on this, I raise a different approach:
> since libzstd is already in backports, and backports are used for new
> features, what about backporting a
> new libzstd and then no-change backport btrfs?
> I think users might like the new zstd features?
> G.
You're absolutely right! Sorry for my blindness to the obvious
solution ^^ I will confess that I'm not sure if the check for the
existence of the udeb in the stretch-backports suite will work,
because I still don't understand all of the limitations of udebs, or
even if they're permitted in backports.
Alexandre, would you please upload 1.3.5+dfsg-2~bpo+1 now that it's
part of buster? If the ftpmaster for the backports queue is ok [1]
with this bpo udeb then this ought to be easy to resolve.
Thanks!
Nicholas
[1] libzstd will need to pass through the NEW queue for
stretch-backports, because of the new udeb package.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature