Backports procedures & Discussion

Shot - Piotr Szotkowski shot at
Wed Jul 20 04:39:57 CDT 2005


Martin Meredith:

> I think we're pretty much agreed on the process of how backports will
> be done, that they will be automatically backported from breezy (or
> current distro +1) and if they do not build from scratch, the changes
> to make them do so will have to be made and put into breezy, so that
> the backport will build from breezy.

Two questions, if I may:

1. Are's hoary-backports planned to replace
the Ubuntu Backports Project (

2. Given the above rule (backports only from Breezy packages) - does
this mean that there will be no backports of upstream-current versions
of packages between Upstream Version Freeze and creation of Perky
(Breezy+1) repositories?

Example - the wesnoth package. Hoary: 0.8.11-1, UBP: 0.9.1-1~5.04ubp1,
Breezy: 0.9.3-1. If upstream were to release 0.9.4 tomorrow, will the
users have to wait till late October for it to get into hoary-backports
(or breezy-backports by then)?

(I'm not judging this policy in any way, just wondering whether I get
the general idea right. At least in wesnoth's case there's always the
route of getting Debian sid's .deb, and if this doesn't work - to get
Debian sid's source and rebuild that locally.)

-- Shot
        Some people say that a monkey would bang out the complete works
        of Shakespeare on a typewriter give an unlimited amount of
        time. In the meantime, what they would probably produce is
        a valid sendmail configuration file.       -- Nicholas Petreley
====================== === ===
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list