Re: Backport to etch
Hi,
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mai 2007, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> I believe that bpo.1 is the normal suffix. Have a look at the
>> backports repository for examples.
That was true before ~ was allowed by dak. Then, the policy changed to
recommend some suffix like ~bpo.1.
> On Mon, 14 Mai 2007, Jörg Sommer wrote:
>> Should it go to <http://www.backports.org>? Then you must name ist
>> 2007-7~bpo.1 The changelog entry looks good.
I agree, and would even recommend that you use such a versioning scheme
if, *and only if* you intend to upload the very same packages to
backports.org. (bpo means backports.org, so labeling something bpo when
it is not uploaded there only spreads confusion)
For my personal backports, I use something like 2007~etch.frougon.0 so
that I can easily spot:
- that the package is a backport of mine;
- that it wasn't updated for etch if the version is something like
2007~sarge.frougon.0.
> But, many new quesions:
> - Build-Dep on tex-common (>= 1.7)
> if I make a package tex-common 1.7~bpo.1 then I have to adjust
> all the build deps to get it right, this is stupid ...?
Unfortunalely, yes. One way around that would be to use versioned
depends such as (>= 1.7~bpo) instead of (>= 1.7) in unstable, even if
you don't have backported the package yet. This works fine since
1.7 >= 1.7~bpo, but I admit it is slightly ugly.
> - Do we backport *all* packages?
> If yes, what to do with the temp tetex packages? Kill them so
> that people can continue to use both TeX systems?
I think you should backport everything, including the dummy tetex
packages. IMHO, people using your backports want something recent, and
therefore don't want to use teTeX 3 along with TeX Live 2007. Moreover,
the less differences you have between unstable (or testing[1]) and your
backports, the better. Both for your own workload and for the value of
the feedback you'll get from users of your backports: it is likely to
benefit the packages in testing/unstable if they are close enough from
the backports.
[1] The policy for backports.org is to only upload packages that are
in testing, except for exceptions (discussed with the ftp-masters)
and security updates. With etch, they added a silly restriction
that says one shouldn't upload backports for packages whose .debs
as found in testing are easily installable. Well, to be fair, I
should add that when that was discussed, they said the restriction
was amended by a "discuss with us" policy, but personally, I don't
want to make a prompotion campaign for every backport I might want
to upload (if I upload something to bpo, it means I find it
useful, I think others will find it useful *and* I intend to
maintain the backport properly. Otherwise, I upload it only to my
private repository).
--
Florent
Reply to: