pre-spec discussion: modified-source backports

On 11/23/05, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/05, John Dong <jdong at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > Now for the backporting policy: build-dep changes should be okay, but
> > > I'm not that confident with 'unpatching upstream-specific changes'.
> > > Whats that? we are shipping software, developed by their upstreams.
> >
> > I meant changes in Dapper that were specific in Dapper, like how
> launchpad
> > integration got added to Breezy and caused most main packages to be
> > unbackportable. Most of those are in the debian/patches directory and
> could
> > be easily and cleanly removed without affecting the package much.
>
> Only if the maintainer did choose using a 'patch'-system like dpatch
> or dbs. Thats no requisite, because all patches go to the .diff.gz
> anyway. What do you do in this case?


If it's not patch-system'ed, then forget it. I'm not murking around
debdiffs, and I'm sure you guys don't want me to be!

> > I have another question to be cleared in advance: Are packages in
> > > -backports being build against the stable release or against the
> > > -backports repository as well? You see the difference?
> >
> >
> > Yes, I see the difference. By default, built against stable release
> because
> > I want people to be able to pick backports independently from the rest
> of
> > the distribution. But when pulling new packages back, I may introduce
> new
> > library packages that aren't in Breezy at all (like libtorrent/rtorrent
> > addition in Dapper), in which case it's only possible to compile against
> > breezy-backports's libtorrent.
>
> So you'd like to choose? Interesting. You should really talk to the
> launchpad artists then, because this backporting functionality needs
> to be implemented there anyway.
>
> How is it handeled atm? Are backports build in a breezy-backports
> chroot or in a 'plain' breezy chroot?


I don't know, but IIRC there were a few Hoary backports that needed deps
from backports and it worked...

> I'd like to have this too, that'd be a cool feature. :). Even cooler would
> > be a frontend/GUI for Dapper to choose backports :)
>
> Thats easy. The amount of work for the archive software is the
> problem, not the small gui, which could be perhaps an extension to
> synaptic or even smart.
>
> --
> regards,
>     Reinhard
>
> --
> ubuntu-backports mailing list
> ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20051123/7638d774/attachment-0001.htm