25.01.2026 15:29, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
..
But in case of postfix I thought it would not be necessary.
Yep, it really wasn't. But since a backport was already available, I just
installed it.
Ohh. I failed to realize the talk's about bookworm, not trixie, - even
if everything mentions that! And you're proposing to update it, not
to introduce a new backport for trixie. Heh.
Yes, I did make postfix backport to bookworm, - in order to have the
changes in packaging there - namely the multi-instance and logging
changes.
Okay, lemme re-read what you wrote once again with this in mind.. :)
And now I'm confused. Usually when I do a backport of version Y,
I start with that version Y, exactly, and re-apply whatever changes
needed for backport of previous version X, X~bpo12+1. So the history
(d/changelog) for Y~bpo12+1 does not include changes between X and
X~bpo12+1. In your case though, it looks like you started from
X~bpo12+1, and picked up the subsequent changes from the master
branch, so version Y in your new history also includes changes
between X and X~bpo12+1, which are missing in actual version Y.
Maybe I miss some tooling or a common way of doing things?
This is why I mentioned the changes you "did not" put to the
changelog - because they're already there before.
Thanks,
/mjt
