martin at sourceguru.net
Fri Aug 12 17:52:42 CDT 2005
I dont agree with getting rid of some checks... and backporting perl
modules like SVN::Perl shouldnt really cause any problems as long as the
whole chain is backported...
John Dong wrote:
> Dude, let's think for a bit: svk 0.29.... svk 1.00-1.... Which one is
> much less functional? ;) No matter what kind of problems removing two of
> 9985 Unit Checks causes, it's still DRAMATICALLY better than what Hoary
> had to offer.
> Furthermore, "problems" would be limited to svk only, and svk users in
> their right minds wouldn't be using 0.29, either!
> Now, if you backport perl modules like SVN::Mirror, you can cause A LOT
> of problems with compatiblity with other packages -- which is the one
> thing Backports tries to avoid.
> It's a much better idea to modify svk to build.
> On 8/12/05, *Martin Meredith* <martin at sourceguru.net
> <mailto:martin at sourceguru.net>> wrote:
> "Official" hoary backports have to be built from breezy... and I'm sure
> you understand that removing version checks etc etc etc is bad, and can
> cause major problems with stability.
> Is it not possible and better to backport those perl modules too?
> John Dong wrote:
> > I've been using svk for a couple weeks now, and I find Hoary's
> > very inadequate. So, I backported 1.00-1 from Breezy. It's working
> > well, and in the unofficial Backports tree.
> > I'd like to see this in the official Backports tree, too. However,
> > there's a few build issues:
> > 1) The specific versions of perl modules that it depends on cannot be
> > satisfied in Hoary. I removed the version checks.
> > 2) About 5 unit tests fail, which forces the build to fail.
> > Investigating on these failures, they're for new features that want
> > those newer perl modules. However, these features aren't in SVK 0.29
> > anyway, so it's still a HUGE improvement from Hoary!
> > So, control needs to be edited, and rules needs to be edited to remove
> > "make test" (disable unit testing). I've used backported svk quite a
> > bit, with no problems at all.
> ubuntu-backports mailing list
> ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> <mailto:ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20050812/49a475f8/signature.pgp
More information about the ubuntu-backports