[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Backports and debhelper 3 for potato (was: Tool to generate an override file from packages?)

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:42:59 +1000, Anthony Towns
<aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 09:08:32PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Most sid packages have Build-Depends: debhelper 3 and DH_COMPAT=3 in
>> debian/rules.
>find pool/main -type f | grep '/.*/.*.diff.gz' | 
>	while read a; do zgrep -l DH_COMPAT=3 "$a"; done | 
>	sed 's,/[^/]*$,,' | uniq | wc
>    933     933   13697
>find pool/main -type f | grep '/.*/.*.diff.gz' | sed 's,/[^/]*$,,' | uniq | wc
>   3542    3542   49523
>Seems a lot less than most packages.

Make that "most packages I happen to backport". I am surely only using
a small fraction of Debian, because I mostly run servers that don't
have X or any nifty stuff installed, but I frequently encounter
packages that need debhelper 3. I am not complaining about this,
though. It is good to have new stuff developed.

>In any case, though, wanting new packages to be written and uploaded,
>and then expecting them somehow to suddenly work on a potato box without
>any backporting doesn't make any sense either.

You're right. But backporting can be easy, and it can be hard. And it
is quite frustrating that a basic tool like debhelper is such a beast
to backport. debhelper depends on debconf-utils which is only in later
debconfs. And debconf's perl scripts use a lot of perl 5.6 features
like "our", and I don't think that there is any other way to get
current debconf running on potato than backporting perl 5.6, which is
_definetely_ something beyond my knowledge.

Is it _really_ that hard to get debhelper 3 for potato?


-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber          |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature  | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29

Reply to: