On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:54:36AM +0200, jre wrote: > First off, yes, the current upstream version via backports would be > nice. Now I'm seriously thinking about doing wine-development backports > for Jessie's lifespan if I find a sponsor (I'm not a Debian Developer or > Maintainer). > > Mike, Stephen, what do you think?
Sounds good to me... For backports all you need to do is verify that the version of wine-development that's currently in testing builds in stable, and that the dependencies of the resulting binary package are also in stable (or backports). If all that's OK, you can add a changelog entry to supply the appropriate version for backports, then find a sponsor. I've got an account on backports so I could do that, but I won't have any time before mid-August. > wine-development not in stable would make the backport even harder or > just impossible to be accepted. It is possible to get a package which isn't in stable into backports; it only needs to be in testing. (See for example my libevdev package which ended up in oldstable-backports.) Regards, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature