[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#749096: Updated version



Le 03/09/2014 11:05, Martin Steghöfer a écrit :
> El 29/08/14 a les 23:33, Ghislain Vaillant ha escrit:
>> Well, you are supposed to target what's in there in unstable if you
>> want your package to be accepted in the archive. Afterwards, Ubuntu
>> will automatically pick it up for its current development version
>> (14.10 or 15.04) depending on how fast the upload to Debian goes.
>> Regarding support for 14.04, this could be done by requesting a
>> backport from the Ubuntu package of a newer release (14.10 or 15.04)
>> and then adding your 14.04 specific patching to the backported package.
> 
> OK, understood. So the bottom-line of your answer, if I understand you
> correctly (taken the fact that the little change in the patch is already
> too much): Helping downstream distributions happens via other channels,
> the Debian package is not supposed/allowed to include anything that is
> unnecessary for Debian unstable.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Martin
> 
> 

Dear Martin,

I think you are over-interpreting what Ghislain wrote. What he said is
rather that your package will likely build unmodified on the next
release of Ubuntu, if not on the current one, because Ubuntu will also
upgrade there version of libav.

You don't *have* to go out of your way to ease the downstream work.
Likewise, you don't *have* to make any efforts to make it easier to
backport your package to older versions of Debian.

However, when it is practical, it is good practice to make the
adjustments that will make your package compile unmodified on Debian
stable and up-to-date derivative distributions.

On the other hand you don't want to obfuscate your package just for the
sake of backports. If the patch becomes unreadable, your sponsor will
give up on checking it.

In the end, it's up to you (and your sponsor) to decide the level of
complexity you want to allow in your package.

Kind regards, Thibaut.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: