Re: Auto Backporting (Was: Backports of scientific packages)
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages
> > which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to
> > be buildable inside stable and using an control field to mark the
> > packages that way.
>
> Shouldn't checking if Build-Depends are satisfiable in stable be enough?
No, not if the library names changed. I have packages, such as
schroot which are buildable on at least oldstable, if not
further back, but due to (in this case) a Boost dependency, the
boost library version changes result in non-backward-compatible
build-deps.
FWIW, the idea of autobuilding the backports where possible is
a pretty good idea IMHO.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Reply to: