[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Backporting debhelper



Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Mensaje escrito por Bob Proulx el 14/08/2003 1:54:
> >Note that I follow the lead of others and I decrement the version and
> >add a unique identifier.  This way when sarge releases and a sarge

> Well, for some time I will only recompile things,

If you are only recompiling then this works well.

  fakeroot apt-get source -b package

But as soon as you modify the control file the resulting package will
be different than the one that came through unstable.  That _might_
cause issues later.  Probably not.  One could argue that even with no
changes it is different because the debhelper scripts will bind the
deb to the shared libs on the build machine and not that in unstable
at the time.  Or if your own machine had modifications.  The pbuilder
process helps here.  I just try to avoid the problem by having the
official versions replace my backports when the time comes.

So if I modify the control file such as to reduce the debhelper
version dependency then I also modify the version number.

> but moreover I'd like to know more details about that procedure
> (decrementing version, adding a unique identifier, any
> example?).

I follow Adrian Bunk's policy:

  http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/

    When I had to recompile a package I have decreased the last digit
    of the package version by one and added a ".bunk", e.g.

    3.1.0a-2 -> 3.1.0a-1.bunk

But replacing 'bunk' with either 'rwp' for me if I had to modify the
package, or 'woody' if I did nothing but recompile and it was
literally unchanged otherwise.

Really any valid methodology would work.  Something like this would be
fine too.  As long as the original version is a later version than the
backport.

    3.1.0a-2 -> 3.1.0a-1.0.1.woody

> >Just curious, what programs are you trying to backport?
> 
> Specially, I am thinking of ardour, one of those applications whose
> backporting seems a mess.

I did not see a previous backport on http://www.apt-get.org/ for that.
(Neither am I familiar with that program either.)

Bob

Attachment: pgpNcjm32TlBe.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: