On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 08.12.2011, 20:51 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
I'm asking more from the point of view of upstream, rather than Debian
packaging. I presume that due to the ghc6→ghc migration, doing backports
for a
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 14:49 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
Just to clarify something, since we talk about debcheckout: should a
backport, since it uses a different VCS, update the Vcs-* entries? They
are not critical, but I think they should be.
I think I did not do it for
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 17:01 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
ok, leaf packages are less of an issue. I kinda dislike to single out
packages instead of treating all of them consistently.
I understand, and I agree with that. The question is if we have the
manpower to maintain backports
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:35:41PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 12:38 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
A policy/technical question now: let's say we have backports for one
package (either just one or out of many). With git-buildpackage, I'd
just use a
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:15:48PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 08.12.2011, 20:51 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
I'm asking more from the point of view of upstream, rather than Debian
packaging. I presume that due to the ghc6→ghc migration, doing backports
for a few
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
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
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:41:28PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 14:29 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
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
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 14:50 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop:
Yes, this is exactly the kind of potential issues that make me dislike
the entire world backports choice.
Just to understand better: why do you think a backport for (e.g.)
libghc6-hslogger-dev is confusing for users? It's a
Hi all,
I'm asking more from the point of view of upstream, rather than Debian
packaging. I presume that due to the ghc6→ghc migration, doing backports
for a few simpler packages (not yesod or such) is still not an easy
task, right?
A good example that I'm thinking about is aeson; it has about
Joachim Breitner wrote:
my thought is that if we do backports, then we should backport the
complete set of haskell packages, including ghc, so the ghc6→ghc
migration should not be a problem; we just do it in backports as well.
So it is basically a problem of rebuilding everything, i.e. of
11 matches
Mail list logo