Re: Feasibility of backports?
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:24:40PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 13:07 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > So, I'm again looking at this problem, as my work project has started
> > depending on newer versions of a few libraries than are available in
> > stable, so if we actually want to provide a backport to squeeze, we need
> > to solve that problem too.
> >
> > I'm a bit split about the entire set as opposed to 5 libs. On one hand,
> > I understand the nicety about nice upgrade paths, but on the other hand
> > I'm not sure how big the effort is for the entire rebuild (as opposed
> > to, again, just ~5 libs).
> >
> > Thoughts? Do you think it's feasible and "cheap" enough to do the entire
> > platform backport?
>
> for a local backport, just rebuilding 5 libs is of course the right
> thing to do. But I’m reluctant to start backporting individual libs for
> squeeze-backports; that would be confusing to the users and also tricky
> when depending packages need to be rebuild (I am not sure whether our
> infrastructure handles that).
Just for the record, I'm talking indeed about squeeze-backports, not a
local backport.
So, it means I have to look into the entire thing. Hrmm… I guess
starting to see just whether ghc 7.4 can be backported is the first step
(once current transition is over).
thanks!
iustin
Reply to: