[Pkg-openldap-devel] Backporting slapd out of jessie to wheezy possible?

[Bill MacAllister]

--On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 09:05:41 AM -0800 Ryan Tandy <ryan at nardis.ca> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:26:03AM -0800, Bill MacAllister wrote:
>> If I understand correctly the issue is the ordering of the version
>> numbers to make sure that an distribution release of a package is not
>> superseded by a backported version of the same upstream version.
>> Russ Allbery taught us what I will call the tilde trick.
>
> Right, that's the conventional way to version a backport. Normally
> we'd use 2.4.40-3~bpo70+1 for this, per [1].
>
> The complicating issue here is the way the package handles BDB
> version upgrades. In unstable, 2.4.39-1 changed from db5.1 to db5.3,
> so the upgrade script does a dump and reload on upgrade from any
> version earlier than that.
>
> DB 5.3 isn't available in wheezy or wheezy-backports, and we think
> backporting it would be too much work, so 2.4.40~bpo70 will be built
> with DB 5.1. Problem is, when we upgrade from 2.4.40~bpo70
> (wheezy-backports) to 2.4.40 (jessie), the DB upgrade won't be
> triggered, because we're not coming from a version lower than 2.4.39
> any more; and since we've frozen it's too late to adjust the upgrade
> script in jessie to account for this.
>
> So this comes to why we're talking about 2.4.31+really2.4.40: it's
> higher than what's currently in wheezy, but low enough to still
> satisfy the check for a version lower than 2.4.39-1, when the same
> system is eventually upgraded to jessie.
>
> I hope that clarifies the specific problem we're trying to solve.
>
> cheers,
> Ryan
>
> [1] http://backports.debian.org/Contribute/#index5h3

Thanks for the excellent explanation.  Apologies for the inbox pollution.

Bill

-- 

Bill MacAllister
System Programmer, Stanford University