Re: Auto Backporting (Was: Backports of scientific packages)
Hello:
As the initial trigger of these interventions, may I ask if anything
has been done to provide version 4.0 of GROMACS for amd64 lenny?
thanks
francesco pietra
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> [Reply-To set to debian-devel because this topic belongs here.]
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:58:00PM +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote:
>>
>> Yes. I like the idea but we simply can't rebuild everything from the
>> task pages of these blends since there are also tools from KDE or GNOME
>> which would mean to backport quite a lot of unrelated stuff. Also,
>> packages with code in interpreted language can almost always be used
>> directly from testing. But I think auto-building could work for a
>> well-defined subset of packages.
>
> IMHO this problem is not really Debian Science or Blends related and the
> idea to handle backports analog to non-free autobuilds sounds quite
> reasonable - but in this case we *really* make it analog tp non-free which
> works with a debian/control field
>
> XS-Autobuild: yes
>
> So why not using a similar field
>
> XS-Autobackport: yes
>
> ? Well, it's definitely not that easy but I see a quite large set of
> packages (specifically in the Debian Science field) which perfectly
> compiles against Build-Depends of stable. If we could handle this set
> automatically for a first shot and think later about those packages
> which need Build-Depends which are not available in stable this would
> be an interesting thing.
>
> 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.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
> Klarmachen zum Ändern!
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: