Hi, Am Dienstag, den 11.02.2014, 17:35 +0100 schrieb intrigeri: > So, in the *current* state of things, once all this has migrated to > testing, it seems to me that I could easily: > > - upload the 6 aforementioned backported packages to > wheezy-backports > - "binNMU" haskell-diagrams-cairo in wheezy-backports, once > haskell-cmdargs is in there is it actually possible to binNMU in wheezy-backports? > On the short term, this seems quite manageable. > > However, the list of packages from the build-dependency tree that need > backporting grew a bit with hledger 0.22.1, and I'm afraid it could > easily come to a point when I would have to backport or "binNMU" > (rebuild against the Haskell stack in wheezy-backport) dozens of > Haskell libraries in wheezy-backports, just to avoid creating > co-installability issues for Haskell libraries that are shipped > in Wheezy. Correct. > All in all, I must say this sounds a bit scary, and I am very tempted > to keep this backport private, and avoid taking a responsibility whose > scope can grow in hard (for me) to predict ways. > > Thoughts, suggestions? Anyone interested in maintaining this set of > packages in the official wheezy-backports? Sorry, there is no easy way out of this. If binNMUs in wheezy-backports are possible then it might be handleable (after all, it’s simply running a script that generates "wb nmu" lines). Otherwise, a private backport might be easier. 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