Sven Hoexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Sven,
> I'll keep it on list because some of the topics might > help people eventually creating Ubuntu backports to do it right. Fine! [...] > > Again, what kind of LyX users are there? Why link LyX to a specific > > latex? Would there be anyone who does not know the relationship > > between LyX and latex, I wonder? > > I should know that I need libc to use some software or shouldn't I? > If you question the need of explicit dependencies you can question > the whole model of creating ready to intall system distributions. Hmm, libc definitely not! Libraries should be explicitly linked, no doubt. Not sure about the linking a whole independent programme like latex. > > Btw, you might like to read the following discussion on checkinstall > > stating that some consider the absence of dependencies in > > checkinstall packages as *either a bug or a feature* ! > > > > http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/147 > > I would formulate it a bit different. Depending on your own skills > and intention you can in some cases consider it as feature. > > In the case of distributing such packages on the internet to an > unknown mass of people with a very different level of knowledge it's > IMO a disavantage. Reasonable assumption. I'm considering building a package that specifies decencies. About backporting I'm not sure at all. [...] > Of course you've to support your backports in case of security > problems in the version you've backported. It's the same for the > checkinstall stuff. You're pulling in a second, isolated, version of > boost btw that needs to be patched as well in case of problems with > boost. That's a very bad thing and I'm happy that we can use with the > external boost packages provide within Debian with the next stable > release. For a current backport you've to backport libboost aswell. > > IMHO it's easier to notice a DSA for boost and check if your boost > backport is affected as well then searching in all your packages > which libs they ship. I guess this means, I should compile and provide the boost lib too than, for Juergen to upload. Should I? > > Main point how, much time and effort does this really take? Perhaps > > you can send me some relevant links off list about the issue. > > That depends on the package and your own skill level and how much you > know about the package you're backporting. This is what I was fearing, I have no knowledge about the source and very limited skills. > In most cases it's just recompiling in a stable chroot. In case of LyX > you've to recompile boost first with a proper version number so that > it will be replaced with the next stable release that ships the same > version. Then you've to install this new boost version in a chroot > and modify the LyX source package a bit. > You might want to interdiff the .diff.gz from sid against Emilios > .diff.gz. It's actually rolling back two versioned dependencies, > removing a dh_icons call which would require a new version of > debhelper scripts and at least lenny to be usefull at all. If you > like you'll pull in the tetex stuff as alternative to texlive and > then you only need to build the package. > > If you know what to do it's about 5min plus compile time. > There are some hints on > http://debian.ethz.ch/pub/debian-backports/utils/Backport-HOWTO.html Also, is it right, that according to this instruction LyX 1.5.3 cannot yet be build: ` 2.2.1 [...] make sure you use sources with an upstream version not higher than what is available in testing.' because testing is only at 1.5.2? http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=lyx Does this mean, we only *now* could have a backport of LyX 1.5.3? What would you say to build a "real" debian package following this instruction instead of checkinstall: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/336 I would consider this in light of you convincing argument, as a reasonable compromise. Cheers, Sam