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

[Alexander Golovko]

В Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:09:47 +0100
Luca Capello <luca at pca.it> пишет:

> Hi there!

Hi, i'm glad to see you!

> 
> Coming a bit late, sorry, but other stuff are keeping me away from
> Bacula (and Alexander's management is awesome!).  This means that I
> have no voice over the choices made, but let me express my opinion
> for future work.
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:34:41 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> > * Alexander Golovko:
> >
> >> В Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:48:02 +0000
> >> Bart Swedrowski <bart at timedout.org> пишет:
> >>
> >>> On 21 January 2013 10:44, Hilko Bengen <bengen at debian.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I just noticed that the build-dependencies had been changed for
> >>> > 5.2.6+dfsg-1~bpo60+1. I did not actually need to change anything
> >>> > for my build because newer versions of debhelper and libpq-dev
> >>> > are in squeeze-backports now. Is it okay to just use the
> >>> > build-dependencies from the wheezy version?
> >>> 
> >>> Not 100% sure about this one but I'd prefer to stick to
> >>> build-dependencies compatible with squeeze-backports.  Alexandro,
> >>> could you comment?
> >>
> >> If we will use libpq-dev from squeeze-backports at build-time,
> >> there will be run-time dependency from new libpq?
> >
> > Not according to my sbuild log:
> 
> This is a random effect, which you (as the bacula maintainer) can not
> control, which is bad.

Yes, you are right, i miss this fact.


> 
> >> I think, that result binary packages should depend from other
> >> backported packages as few as possible.
> >
> > It doesn't matter for the current situation,
> 
> Again, a random effect.

You are right again.


> 
> > but I agree with that
> > principle.
> 
> The principle should be the same for both source and binary packages:
> you should stick to squeeze as much as you can, full stop.  This means
> that your package should build with debhelper in squeeze (= 8.0.0) and
> libpq-dev in squeeze (8.4.13-0squeeze1).
> 
> Adding extra dependencies from squeeze-backports means that you are
> targeting a non-existing distribution and you are losing control on
> how your package behaves.  IMHO you are not backporting anymore,
> instead you are adapting a package to a unclear environment.

I'm not 100% sure. Backports contain only packages from testing, we
control package behavior on near the same level, as on package in
testing. There are always strictly detected, how dependency will be
resolved (from stable or from backport). 

Of-course, there is only true if we use clean build environment.
git-buildpackage have ability to build package for backports (if we
specify DIST=*-backports, than it add backports mirror into
apt/sources.list)

But i'm sure, that we want backports more stable, than testing. So i'm
agree with you, that even in this case there are difference between
using deps only from squeeze and using deps from backports. So i will
prefer to see next backported package with squeeze-only deps.


> 
> Please note that asking on debian-backports@ *before* the upload would
> have been better ;-)
> 
> Thx, bye,
> Gismo / Luca


-- 
with best regards,
Alexander Golovko
email: alexandro at ankalagon.ru
xmpp: alexandro at ankalagon.ru
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-bacula-devel/attachments/20130131/6a72660f/attachment.pgp>