On Monday 01 February 2010 10:39:50 Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > Jan Wagner wrote: > > On Saturday 30 January 2010 14:47:34 Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > >> Certainly, not users. And, let's make that clear: it's not "in my eyes". > >> Ask other DDs or DMs about this particular question if you want to have > >> another opinion. At least, ask the usual maintainer for review before > >> proposing a backport. Doing otherwise seems wrong to me (unless you are > >> very confident with the code). > > > > thats you POV, there maybe others. Most maintainers don't care about > > backporting (like about their packages in stable and even old-stable). > > It requires more work! That's the main reason. Most of the time, we > don't have time for that because we want to dedicate free time to fix RC > bugs or to prepare the next stable release. > Sometimes, we do some backports when it's really needed (e.g. when > another team needs a particular version of a package in Stable (or > whatever)). We are happy to do it when there is valid reasons behind. > Most people are happy with Stable and Old-stable exactly how they are > because they are feature-frozen and only security/important bugs are > fixed in those versions. Thats totally fine and I don't belive anybody is making a backport of ocaml just for fun. In my case it was a build-dep, needed by another package. > And, please don't make false assumptions. In our team, we try very hard > to fix any problem that arises in any of our packages in stable or > old-stable. I didn't jundged about your team nor was my intention to make false assumptions, it's just a fact for the whole project itself, see the list[1] of rc-bugs in stable. > Just recalling the problem so that other members can follow more easily: > OCaml is failing to build from source because dh-ocaml needs a > particular version of Debhelper at *runtime*. OCaml already depends on > the good version of dh-ocaml which provides runtime-map and checksum > options. Dh-ocaml indeed needs Debhelper 7.1.0 to have these options > working correctly. > > dh-ocaml will not see his depends changing (just like the quilt package > do). We might correct to build-dep for OCaml (and we will certainly need > to make a lintian warning which says that Debhelper 7.1.0 is needed when > using "dh --with ocaml"). > > >> If you have a better/real solution, please share with us. > >> If not, I will not accept any of the solutions I've mentioned because > >> the problem arises *only* for the backport. > > > > Sorry ... this is exactly the point, why people mostly don't contact > > maintainers _before_ creating backports ... the ignorance of package > > maintainers about backporting. You are a good example for such behavior. > > I'm sorry but I disagree. I do care about my packages (for any version). > But, sometimes the correct fix is not obvious. It doesn't mean I don't > want to fix the bug but that I looking for a good fix. So maybe I did missinterpret "I will not accept any of the solutions [...] because the problem arises *only* for the backport." Of course, looking for a good fix is indeed a strategy I strongly support. In my eyes, raising the build-dep of debhelper to ">= 7.1.0" just fixes ocaml, correct me, if I'm wrong. But adding a lintian check for the use dh_ocaml looks indeed like smart solution. Thanks and with kind regards, Jan. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/other/stable.html -- Never write mail to <waja@spamfalle.info>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.