Hi, 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? > And if it doesn't build that way, I'd say there's a bug in the package > anyways, because it should bump some build dependencies.
build-deps are not necessarily runtime deps. Especially if stuff changed in the fs or for policy reasons and that is not reflected in the build-deps because the change is not in the build-deps. Same for depends. Or do you (build-)depend on a newer menu for the menu changes stuff? or will you depend or conflict against all myspell/hunspell dicts in stable with ice*? No, you would want to revert that changes to run on stable smoothly. > As a side note, some packages are "easily" backportable, in the sense > that they only require a few build-dependencies to be backported. This > is the case for xulrunner and iceweasel, where only sqlite needs to be > backported for the packages to be backportable. Actually, xulrunner and iceweasel are bad examples, since they will be involved in the hunspell dictionary location transition. A rebuild will make them look in a location which does not even exist in stable. (Yet that transition has to be done for squeeze) Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
