[Bug 71058] Re: Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy
Do you mean backport from Feisty to Edgy and Dapper? At least a fresh Edgy installation still reports 1.3.2. OK - a backport of fresh 1.3.x from Edgy to Dapper (and maybe Breezy) would be also a good step forward. It would be very fine to have a PLF maintained repository of packages, which is known to contain packages which _might_ break backwards compatibility with some dependent packages. It is then up to the user to incorporate packages from this repo in his own sources.list . At least a collection of manuals for prevu based backports like this would be very fine. Thanks, Achim -- Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy https://launchpad.net/bugs/71058 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
[Bug 71058] Re: Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy
A bit off-topic: It would be very fine to have a PLF maintained repository of packages, which is known to contain packages which _might_ break backwards compatibility with some dependent packages. It is then up to the user to incorporate packages from this repo in his own sources.list . http://plf.zarb.org/about.php http://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/doc/plf-packaging-policy PLF repository is designed for packages that can't be distributed in official ubuntu repositories (mostly for legal issues), not to maintain duplicates nor packages which might break backwards compatibility (there are enough third-party repositories you can use to break your system ;). -- Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy https://launchpad.net/bugs/71058 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
[Bug 71058] Re: Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy
We'll start by looking at a Subversion 1.3.2 backport to Dapper. So far , I +1 it, but we still need to test the server-side aspect of it, and whether or not an upgrade to 1.3.2 requires any manual work on the server side. As far as a repository of risky backports, that's one of the reasons that motivated me to write prevu -- so that those with more aggressive backporting needs can easily do it themselves. I don't see a compelling reason to organize prevu'ed packages into a repository. -- Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy https://launchpad.net/bugs/71058 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
[Bug 71058] Re: Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy
Rejecting all backports requests: Subversions's libraries (libsvn-*) are used by lots and lots of other packages. After backporting, backwards-compatibility with those packages can no longer be guaranteed. ** Changed in: edgy-backports (upstream) Status: Unconfirmed = Rejected ** Changed in: dapper-backports (upstream) Status: Unconfirmed = Rejected ** Changed in: breezy-backports (upstream) Status: Unconfirmed = Rejected -- Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy https://launchpad.net/bugs/71058 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
[Bug 71058] Re: Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy
Reopening dapper-backports request for subversion from Edgy to Dapper This can be considered. IT builds successfully in prevu, but I haven't had the chance to test it. ** Changed in: dapper-backports (upstream) Status: Rejected = Unconfirmed -- Please backport subversion 1.4.0 to Breezy, Dapper and Edgy https://launchpad.net/bugs/71058 -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
