On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:54:22PM +0000, Sam Lewis wrote: > Sven Hoexter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi, > Reasonable assumption. I'm considering building a package that > specifies decencies. About backporting I'm not sure at all. That would be equal to a backport. :) > > 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? Emilio did it already. IMHO you should do nothing at all and simply use Emilios packages. I hope that Emilio will change the dependency on texlive soon that could help some people to avoid the tetex->texlive now. I simply didn't mention his backport before because I had some hope to get a package on backports.org soon. Since it seems to be a bit more complicated to find a sponsor I'd recommend his repository until that's solved in some way or another. > > > 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. Then you should not distribute packages at all or try to read a little bit about Debian packaging before doing so. > > > > 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 *argh* Wrong link. Sorry, it should have been this one: http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=contribute > 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 you could and what you should are two different things *g*. You can of course backport 1.5.3 and that's what Emilio did. ATM such a backport would not be accepted on backports.org to avoid potential version conflicts. This is hypothetical: If Lenny would be released with LyX 1.5.2 and you've a backport of 1.5.3 installed on your etch system it wouldn't work because the backport has been build with the old libs of etch and because of the higher version it would not downgrade. To avoid this problem it's a good practise to only create backports for packages that will be included in the next stable release. For some further understanding you can play around with dpkgs version-compare option to understand how the versions would interact on hypothetical upgrades. > 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. Building real Debian packages is called backporting in this case. You don't have to recreate the whole package because you can base it on the work already done. Add a deb-src line for unstable to your sources.list and apt-get update && apt-get source lyx. Cheers, Sven -- If God passed a mic to me to speak I'd say stay in bed, world Sleep in peace [The Cardigans - 03:45: No sleep]
