[ I didn't told you the last time, but please don't CC: me on replies as I'm already subscribed to -devl ] On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 10:31:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > > I'm also concerned about backports. I have the impression that changing > > packages to use po-debconf will actually make things worse for > > backporters trying to make packages build correclty on Woody. > > > Could someone give me some hints on how should I proceed ? > > Use of po-debconf does not require a dependency, only a build-dependency; > the binary packages contain merged templates files as before, and these > files require only a current version of debconf to be used correctly. Sorry. I should have said build-dependency instead of dependency. Anyway, po-debconf must be installed at the build machine under which the backporter is doing the package build. Is it okay for a backported package to be built in unstable when it will actually be used under stable ? If it's okay, I shouldn't worry too much, as the backporter probably will be a Debian developer which will be providing a nice service to his/her package users and already has access to an unstable machine anyway. However, if the recommended method is to build a backported package under the distribution it's being backported to (and I think that's the case), it would be good if po-debconf were backported to stable. I'll take a look at po-debconf and see if it's too much work (i.e. if it does need the newer perl from unstable). Denis, do you tkink it's doable ? BTW, does someone knows if I should declare a versioned build-dependency on po-debconf or just build-depending on any po-debconf version is ok ? Regards, -- ++----------------------------------------------------------------------++ || André Luís Lopes andrelop@ig.com.br || || Debian-BR Project http://debian-br.cipsga.org.br || || Public GPG KeyID 9D1B82F6 || || Keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net ||
Attachment:
pgpPpV5lqVHSj.pgp
Description: PGP signature