On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:22:30AM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: > > On 31 Mar 2009, at 8:23 am, Martin Maurer wrote: > >> Hi Dominic, >> >> Thanks for this, I see the 3.8.2 packages are already in unstable AND >> testing - but what about the original discussed idea to have an extra >> repo with rt 3.8.x for Lenny? > > ... or possibly get the packages uploaded to lenny-backports, might be a > better solution.
It's not a valid upload candidate for lenny-backports, since the version in testing/unstable does not require rebuilding to work on lenny. The normal way of handling these cases would be to add, for example, testing or unstable APT lines, with appropriate package pinning to avoid pulling anything except the required packages, or to put packages in a site-local repository. The last time this was discussed Martin was keen to provide a repository with just the request-tracker3.8 package and dependencies not satisfied in lenny, but I'm still in two minds about whether this is worth the extra work. I certainly don't have a use case for it (since we already have our own private apt repositories for local builds). Martin, could you think again about whether you are able to get by with the appropriate package pinning? Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves, Systems Development and Support Team Computing Services, University of Oxford _______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [email protected] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
