Hi Matthias, On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 07:19:15AM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 07:04:05PM +1200, Vladimir Petko wrote: > > The debhelper-compat was intentionally set to >=11 in order to > > support backports. > > Thank you for the reminder. I can easily revert the change. But to > make sure I understand the requirements, how far back do we want to > support backports of new uploads of jtreg6? > > Although it wasn't part of the buster release, debhelper 13.x is > available in old-old-stable (buster) backports [0,1], which is as far as > I looked before making the change. Is jtreg6 needed for stretch, which > is currently in EOL ELTS [2]? > > Thank you, > tony > > [0] https://packages.debian.org/source/buster-backports/debhelper > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/oldoldstable-backports/debhelper > [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases
Thank you for the upload. As I mentioned to Vladimir above, I'd like to document the reason debhelper 13 is not backport friendly. If you can give me a pointer or a brief explanation, I'll add it to README.source so it's clear to all. (I assume it has to do with releases older than Debian buster or Ubuntu focal [3], since both of their backport suites already contain debhelper 13.) Also, there are build-deps of jtreg6, for example libhamcrest-java [4] that depend on debhelper-compat 13 and presumably need to be adjusted as well. Thanks, tony [3] https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default§ion=all&arch=any&keywords=debhelper&searchon=sourcenames [4] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/libhamcrest-java/-/blob/master/debian/control#L10
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
