On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:24:40PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 13:07 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > So, I'm again looking at this problem, as my work project has started > > depending on newer versions of a few libraries than are available in > > stable, so if we actually want to provide a backport to squeeze, we need > > to solve that problem too. > > > > I'm a bit split about the entire set as opposed to 5 libs. On one hand, > > I understand the nicety about nice upgrade paths, but on the other hand > > I'm not sure how big the effort is for the entire rebuild (as opposed > > to, again, just ~5 libs). > > > > Thoughts? Do you think it's feasible and "cheap" enough to do the entire > > platform backport? > > for a local backport, just rebuilding 5 libs is of course the right > thing to do. But I’m reluctant to start backporting individual libs for > squeeze-backports; that would be confusing to the users and also tricky > when depending packages need to be rebuild (I am not sure whether our > infrastructure handles that).
Just for the record, I'm talking indeed about squeeze-backports, not a local backport. So, it means I have to look into the entire thing. Hrmm… I guess starting to see just whether ghc 7.4 can be backported is the first step (once current transition is over). thanks! iustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
