As for 1): My initial description could and should have been better. I'm actually not aware of bugs that can and should be fixed by point patches. That is, the description is wrong.
The core problem the backport tries to address is that OpenCPN users (thousands, for sure) are accustomed to using a PPA [1] These packages are not really "packaged" in the sense we are used to, there is no source package, no review, etc -- it's basically the auto-generated output from cmake/cpack. However, the PPA is up to date with the latest releases. If we want to offer proper repos instead, backports are necessary to make the official packaging useful. Until we get this running there are no issues reported through the Ubuntu channels. If I look in upstream there are of course all sorts of problems which are solved by latest release. But I honestly don't (yet) see the value of point-patching any of these. Of course, user input in upstream or here might change the situation. I am certainly prepared to handle this by updating the 5.6.0 package if/when the situation occurs. On a sidenote, 5.6.2 is backported not only to Bullseye but also Buster. [1] https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109 Title: [BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1971109/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
