Am Samstag, den 02.05.2020, 10:49 -0300 schrieb Antonio Terceiro: > On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 03:11:19PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 02.05.2020, 14:12 +0900 schrieb Marc Dequènes (duck): > > > Quack, > > > > > > If I rebuild redmine using gem2deb >= 1 I end-up with this error: > > > gem2deb-test-runner : Breaks: ruby-mime-types (< 3.3.1-1~) but 3.2.2-1 > > > is to be installed > > > > You are IMHO doing something forbidden or at least discouraged. Packages > > for > > backports should be built with packages in stable only. Other backports > > should > > usually not be required. Definietely not for building the package! To be > > correct: My last information was, that this is a requirement. The backports > > page now reads, that this is highly discouraged and only allowed in a few > > cases. > > > > https://backports.debian.org/Contribute/#index3h2 > > > > Second and last point. gem2deb IMHO doesn't seem to fit these requirements. > > Its > > backport also should not contain the specific change for the unstable- > > testing > > migration. > > Backporting toolchain packages in general is usually a bad idea. In > particular I object to backporting gem2deb at all. Well, it already is in backports. [1] Actually IMHO this is not bad per se. With the backport stable users can create ruby packages (latest dh-make-ruby features) for unstable and push their work to salsa. But it should not be used for building backports. In this I agree. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/news/1113808/accepted-gem2deb-105bpo101-source-amd64-into-buster-backports-buster-backports/ -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/ GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 If you like my work consider sponsoring me via https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part