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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] XFCE 4.12 backport for Jessie

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:02:10AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:26 AM, La?rcio de Sousa
> <laerciosousa at sme-mogidascruzes.sp.gov.br> wrote:
> > After investigating their current binary versions in stretch (I'm only
> > watching on their source versions until now, and I'm not aware about binNMUs
> > before), I just realized that a "+b1~bop8+1" could be a good suffix for
> > those jessie packages that only need to be rebuilt against backported new
> > libs.
> No, a "~bpo8+1" suffix is still correct (it'll always be strictly less
> than the version in stretch). If for whatever reason you need to
> binNMU packages in backports, you can file binNMU bugs against the
> release.debian.org pseudopackage (the resulting packages will have a
> suffix of "~bpo8+1+b1").
> About backporting xfce 4.12 as a whole...have you discussed this with
> the Debian xfce team yet? The initial backport may be manageable, but
> is maintaining these backported packages for the entire lifetime of
> jessie (and keeping them up-to-date with stretch) feasible? Are you
> willing to handle all bug reports associated with these backported
> packages?

Honestly, I'd really prefer people actually helping us with bugs and
stuff like that (first in unstable, and let it migrate to testing and
stable following the natural flow). And do stable uploads for things
really needed, if they exists.

Yves-Alexis Perez
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20150821/159a1c1f/attachment-0001.sig>

Reply to: