Nick Hastings <nicholaschastings@gmail.com> writes: > * Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> [230818 14:04]: >> 18.08.2023 02:47, Nick Hastings пишет: >> > * Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> [230815 02:55]: >> >> ..until something *else* is backported too which uses the backported >> wlroots, like sway. So basically, if we're about backporting this, >> we should think about backporting, for example, sway, with wlroots >> as a pre-dependency, not wlroots alone. *That* will make sense. >> Backporting wlroots by itself does not. > > Understood. > > Interestingly, just over 24 hours ago a sway backport enquiry was > posted: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2023/08/msg00019.html This is good news! Now that a request has been made, someone can now step forward to maintain a backport of sway, and thus a wlroots backport. > I am still curious about the soname issue, which I understood to be > independent of the this. I'm also curious about this. Were this the case, shouldn't 0.16.0-1 have added Breaks and Replaces, and wouldn't they still be needed? Regards, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature