On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 04:41:12PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > 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. Fair enough. > But it should not be used for building backports. In this I agree. One issue in there is that gem2deb from bullseye (and therefore that backport) generates a Build-Depends on gem2deb (>= 1), and in buster that will only be satisfied with the backport.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature