Re: conditional d/rules resulting in different features b/t buster & stretch-backports?
On 1/4/19 8:30 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi Nicholas,
I've uploaded yesterday libzstd 1.3.8 into unstable. Once it is in
testing I'll upload the backport. Hope that's fine.
Regards,
Alex
Reply to: