Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 17:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > ok, leaf packages are less of an issue. I kinda dislike to single out > > packages instead of treating all of them consistently. > > I understand, and I agree with that. The question is if we have the > manpower to maintain backports of all packages as a whole, instead of > cherry-picking what's needed. Over the life of squeeze, I would guess we > probably need just (random guess) 20% of the packages backported. That’d be 80 packages, that is quite a lot. > > But this is Debian: If you want to invest the work, you can decide how > > to do it. So you are welcome to proceed that way and I won’t hold it > > against you :-) > > Heh :) I'm just trying to understand what is the simplest way to get N > packages backported, where N is a small number. > > A policy/technical question now: let's say we have backports for one > package (either just one or out of many). With git-buildpackage, I'd > just use a bpo-squeeze branch, which would be trivial to setup. How does > this work with darcs? I'm reading http://wiki.darcs.net/BestPractices > and it seems to say it doesn't support _any_ kind of multiple branches > in one repository? No, in Darcs, a repository is a branch (in a way similar to SVN, where branches are directories in the virtual SVN tree). So what I did for expeirmental is to clone the repo and put it in /darcs/pkg-haskell/experimental – you can do the same with /darcs/pkg-haskell/squeeze-backports. No support from PET in that case, though. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part