[Pkg-crosswire-devel] Backports inclusion

Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.ledkov at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 05:46:51 BST 2009

2009/6/1 Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden at fastmail.fm>:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> I was aware about bibletime and Qt4.4 issue on hardy and that it
>> requires backports enabled but because of this reason I was thinking
>> to have separate PPA for the bibletime/hardy. Because now:
>> 1) backports are enabled for all hardy - karmic
>> 2) not everyone wants to use backports
>> 3) it is only needed for 1 package in 1 distribution
>> 4) there needs to be additional instructions on how to add backports
> 1) True, but this enables them *only* for building in the PPA.  Users of
> our non-Hardy packages do not need to enable backports to use them.

Building and linking, hence possible run-time requirements (well we
know one on hardy already)

> 2) True, but no problem.  Everyone does not *have* to use backports :)

Except if our packages don't work. People then go on and enable
backports and then their system get's even more unstable.

> 3) True.  It is needed, for that one case for which we had a specific
> request for a package from existing BibleTime users -- so I added it.
> Where is the problem with that?

No problem there except that the change affects all future builds of
all packages.

> 4) True, we should add info on enabling backports for Hardy users.  We
> can probably just link to existing documentation at
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu#Adding%20Other%20Repositories
> and specify the include the deb line for Hardy backports
>  deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ jaunty-backports main universe

Well enabling jaunty backports on hardy machine would result in some
funky stuff happening ;-)
> that we suggest Hardy users add.


> Is there actually an *harm* for non-hardy users in leaving the PPA with
> backports enabled?  Can you be specific on what that harm is?  If not,
> then it's simpler for everyone to have just one Crosswire PPA for end
> users to come to, not several, IMO.

I went to re-read policy about backports and they say generally
API/ABI breakage is not allowed, unless "only small amount of apps"
are affected and they simply rebuild those in backports.

So no, I don't know of current packages that might bring harm of not
having backports enabled on Intrepid & Jaunty while using backports at

> The only possibility for problems I can think of is that backports might
> contain updated libraries that SWORD/Xiphos/BibleTime use and so, if
> built in a PPA with backports enabled, they would have dependencies on
> those newer libs.  But I don't actually know of any libraries currently
> in *-backports that would affect us in that way.  Do you know of some?
> If they do exist, can we simply add manual dependency checks for them,
> with a relevant version number, and so prevent the automated dependency
> on the very newest version(s)?
> Jonathan

I don't know of such, but backport's wiki suggest that it is a possibility.

For the sake of having one PPA for users I have a two new different proposals:

1) Copy the hardy-backport Qt into our ppa (might be just a little
suspicious for users.......)

2) Enable back ports only while building bibletime on hardy and keep
it turned off for the rest of the time.

With best regards

Dmitrijs Ledkovs (for short Dima),
Ледков Дмитрий Юрьевич

More information about the Pkg-crosswire-devel mailing list