Re: working for wheezy-security until wheezy-lts starts

[Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>]

B0;115;0cOn Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:35:31AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Brian May wrote:
> > Looks like a total of 85 packages failed to build and 46 packages
> > succeeded. So me thinks this strategy of using the Jessie version in
> > wheezy may not be a feasible option.
> 
> Unless you can revert some of the problematic change or add some
> compatibility code. I have not looked at the failures but Moritz seemed to
> imply that many of the changes were mechanical like renames of macros and
> functions. Maybe we can add back the old names to fix most of the
> failures?

That would work for some of the changes, but there's also other API changes.

In general, all the libav transitions have been handled via the BTS, so patches
should be found there. Some packages also ended up being incompatible/abandoned
and were eventuall removed, so please also check whether any of the failing
packages are actually still in jessie. Otherwise they should be EOLed.

Also, Brian's build logs also list chromium, which is already EOLed in wheezy
for a while (since current Chromium requires a newer G++).

Cheers,
        Moritz