Bug#1050944: debhelper-compat level

[tony mancill]

Hi Matthias,

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 07:19:15AM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 07:04:05PM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote:
> >  The debhelper-compat was intentionally set to >=11 in order to
> > support backports.
> 
> Thank you for the reminder.  I can easily revert the change.  But to
> make sure I understand the requirements, how far back do we want to
> support backports of new uploads of jtreg6?
> 
> Although it wasn't part of the buster release, debhelper 13.x is
> available in old-old-stable (buster) backports [0,1], which is as far as
> I looked before making the change.  Is jtreg6 needed for stretch, which
> is currently in EOL ELTS [2]?
> 
> Thank you,
> tony
> 
> [0] https://packages.debian.org/source/buster-backports/debhelper
> [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/oldoldstable-backports/debhelper
> [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases

Thank you for the upload.  As I mentioned to Vladimir above, I'd like to
document the reason debhelper 13 is not backport friendly.  If you can
give me a pointer or a brief explanation, I'll add it to README.source
so it's clear to all.  (I assume it has to do with releases older than
Debian buster or Ubuntu focal [3], since both of their backport suites
already contain debhelper 13.)

Also, there are build-deps of jtreg6, for example libhamcrest-java [4]
that depend on debhelper-compat 13 and presumably need to be adjusted as
well.

Thanks,
tony

[3] https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default&section=all&arch=any&keywords=debhelper&searchon=sourcenames
[4] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/libhamcrest-java/-/blob/master/debian/control#L10
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20230902/5baa0bb2/attachment.sig>