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

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

Vincent and all,

About suffix "~bpo8+1+b1" you've mentioned, it would still not work in my
case, because resulting package version would be lower than one in Jessie!
Let me take a practical example:

Package xfce4-mixer:
  * Current source version: 1.10.3-1 in both Jessie and Stretch
  * Current binary version in jessie: 1.10.3-1 (with xfce4-panel 4.10
  * Current binary version in stretch: 1.10.3-1+b1 (with xfce4-panel 4.12
  * Hypothetical binary version in jessie-backports: 1.10.3-1[X]~bpo8+1[Y]
(with backported xfce4-panel 4.12 dependency)

My question is: where to put "+b1" in backported version? At position [X]
or [Y]? Putting it in [Y] would result in a version number
(1.10.3-1~bpo8+1+b1) lower than one in jessie (1.10.3-1). On the other
hand, putting it at [X] would still result in a binary version
(1.10.3-1+b1~bpo8+1) higher than one in jessie, but still lower than
current one in stretch (1.10.3-1+b1).

About maintaining the whole XFCE 4.12 tree in jessie-backports, I'll keep
on maintaining my own builds in OBS, eventually writing some scripts to
keep track of changes in stretch and automate building and uploading
backported packages whenever necessary. If I feel comfortable with the
process, I will volunteer myself for maintaing it in jessie-backports. In
the mean time, I still really appreciate if at least lightdm and
lightdm-gtk-greeter (maintained by the same "Debian Xfce Maintainers" team)
could be in jessie-backports in short term. Honestly, I only need
backported xfwm4 4.12 (to better handling CSD-enabled apps), but I'm afraid
it requires a full XFCE tree rebuild against 4.12 libs.

2015-08-21 15:04 GMT-03:00 Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac at debian.org>:

> 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.
> Regards,
> --
> Yves-Alexis Perez

*La?rcio de Sousa*
*Orientador de Inform?tica*
*Escola Municipal "Professor Eul?lio Gruppi"*
*Rua Ismael da Silva Mello, 559, Mogi Moderno*
*Mogi das Cruzes - SPCEP 08717-390*
Telefone: (11) 4726-8313
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20150821/0a8b33be/attachment.html>

Reply to: