[pkg-bacula-devel] squeeze backport for bacula 5.2.6+dfsg-7

Luca Capello luca at pca.it
Thu Jan 31 08:37:02 UTC 2013

Hi there!

Please do not Cc: me, I read the list.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:36:41 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> * Luca Capello:
>> Everything is there already:
>>   <http://backports-master.debian.org/Contribute/#index5h3>
>>   Basic Rules
>>   [...]
>>   * Make sure that you have a proper build environment which only
>>     contains squeeze and no unneeded backports. Maybe you want to
>>     consider pbuilder or cowbuilder for building packages.
> There is no definition what backports are unneeded.

debhelper_9.20120909~bpo60+1 is unneeded, since debhelper_8.0.0 is fine.
The same is true for libpq-dev_9.1.7-1~bpo60+1 WRT 8.4.13-0squeeze1 (NB,
the former is a new *major* upstream version than the latter).

> There's a conflict of interest between maintainers who will want to
> change their testing package as little as possible and users who want to
> keep their systems as close to stable. I doubt that there is a
> one-size-fits-all solution, but some advice how to resolve this conflict
> would be useful.

I do not share your vision (backports maintainers are not necessarily
the same as the "primary" maintainers) , but, as I wrote in my first
reply, I should have popped up before the upload.

IMHO the guidelines are clear (do not change too much what is in
squeeze), which are a one-size-fits-all solution, but I appreciate that
others could read it differently.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20130131/13334f40/attachment.pgp>

More information about the pkg-bacula-devel mailing list