[Pkg-owncloud-maintainers] Would a backport be useful?

[Gunnar Wolf]

Jan Wagner dijo [Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 01:00:25PM +0200]:
> > I think the only packages that get additional into build deps are
> > js and php libs, because the are used as 3rd-party modules and they
> > should not be hard to backport. We would support you with our
> > knowledge to keep the backport packages well formed. Feel welcome
> > to ask for details!
> 
> I've prepared backported (just rebuild still) packages of owncloud[1]
> for wheezy. I even backported all (build-)dependencies. Anyways .. I
> don't feel I have time to commit me to maintain them official on
> wheezy-backports.
> If anybody is interested in those packages, all needed
> (source-)packages can be found in my own package pool[2] in the
> distribution 'wheezy-backorts'.
> 
> I would appreciate to see owncloud in the backports pool.

Hi Jan!

Although I also don't feel I can commit to maintaining it all, you
will be glad to know I also took this step — And yesterday, I uploaded
owncloud (the webapp) to wheezy-backports¹. I have still not tackled
the other Owncloud packages, and am unsure if I can/should push them
all, but I'll most likely upload also at least ocsync as well.

I'm sorry we didn't synchronize our works and you ended up doing it as
well as me; I might use your work for ocsync — And if you feel I
should also explicitly look at another one among the packages, please
tell me so!

¹ Currently in NEW, http://ftp-master.debian.org/backports-new.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-owncloud-maintainers/attachments/20130928/2080b38b/attachment.sig>