Re: backport of dpkg (>= 1.17.2) and apt (>= 0.9.16.1) for build profiles
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi backports team and dpkg and apt maintainers,
> I'm crossposting to these three lists because all parties have to agree on this
> for this to happen.
> We would like to add build profile support  to packages in the archive and
> because build profiles add a new syntax to Build-Depends, tools like dpkg and
> apt need to be able to understand it as they would otherwise throw an error.
> Support for build profiles was integrated into a number of tools already and
> most of them already migrated into testing. You can see  for an overview.
> Because of this syntax change, packages that use this syntax can only be
> uploaded once tools in Debian stable support it because the build
> infrastructure runs Debian stable. One option would be to wait until the jessie
> release but we fear that if we go that route we might discover too late that we
> missed to patch one important tool and in the worst case have to wait for yet
> another release until packages with build profiles can be uploaded.
> Therefore we would like to test whether the Debian build infrastructure can
> handle uploads of source packages using build profiles as early as possible. It
> seems that the two options for making this happen is to either backport the
> current versions of dpkg, apt and python-apt or to make a stable update:
> 12:33 < Ganneff> ftpmaster takes what dsa runs. dsa takes backports.
> 12:35 < adsb> I'd suspect they'd prefer a stable update for that sort of thing. but icb(e)w
> 12:35 < ansgar> And support in w-b, apt (in stable), ... if there are incompatible changes to Build-Depends.
> I'm writing to this list because a backport is probably more easy than plugging
> the build-profile commit on top of the current stable versions of dpkg and apt?
> What do you think? Would you support releasing a build profile enabled version
> of dpkg and apt and python-apt into backports so that dak and wanna-build can
> support build profiles before jessie happens?
It is and was always backports policy to prevent backporting packages which
do have too much impact on the stable system. And to be honest, apt do fall
into that category. Unless someone has some really really good reasons I
won't accept apt into backports.
P.S. I haven't spoken to rhonda yet, so consider this as my personal