On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:23:06PM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 10:17:25AM -0800, Mike Miller wrote: > > I was just checking the diffs in octave since debian/4.2.1-2_bpo9+1, and > > it appears that 4.2.1-7 is no longer backportable, specifically because > > of https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-octave-team/octave/commit/af738a5d40e6. > > There is no libqscintilla2-qt5-dev in stretch or stretch-backports. > > Should we request a backport of qscintilla2 or give up on > > stretch-backports? > > I think we should adapt the backport to whatever Qt package is in stretch (if > there is no newer in stretch-backports). > > I plan to do that for Octave 4.2.2 when it goes out, but feel free to update it > earlier. I realize that my answer was maybe too terse. I understand from your message that octave is no longer *trivially* backportable (i.e. by just recompiling), but still it should still be *easily* backportable (just by reverting the commit about libqscintilla2-qt5-dev). It’s perfectly acceptable for the version in backports to be slightly different from the version in testing/unstable (such changes should be documented in the backport-specific changelog entry). And it’s actually normal that the two begin to diverge, as buster diverges more and more from stretch. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature