On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 04:06:15PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > So in short: we should choose the "well-defined" subset of packages > > which are candidates for autobackporting according to their feature to > > be buildable inside stable and using an control field to mark the > > packages that way. > > Shouldn't checking if Build-Depends are satisfiable in stable be enough?
No, not if the library names changed. I have packages, such as schroot which are buildable on at least oldstable, if not further back, but due to (in this case) a Boost dependency, the boost library version changes result in non-backward-compatible build-deps. FWIW, the idea of autobuilding the backports where possible is a pretty good idea IMHO. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
