Backports procedures & Discussion

[Martin Meredith]

Question 1. Simply, yes, not simply, partially.

It is planned to replace this, as the hoary-backprots will be builtn
automatically  to archive.ubuntu.com and mirrored out as if it was a
normal repository, however, the haory-extras  repository will NOT be
taken on in any official aspect, which will mean that
http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/ will remain for the hoary-extras
repositories.

Please note however, that it is the Backports team from
http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/ that will be running the new
"official" backports, so don't worry, we're not trying to kick anyone
out of a job, the most impact it will have on users is the change of
URL, the increased stabilty of backports, and the distinction between
hoary-backports and hoary-extras

With Regards to your second question, I have no idea, this hasn't been
discussed as of yet, and is a good question, and one I'm going to be
asking myself

Shot - Piotr Szotkowski wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> 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 archive.ubuntu.com's hoary-backports planned to replace
> the Ubuntu Backports Project (http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/)?
> 
> 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.)
> 
> Cheers,
> -- Shot
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050720/d076ddaf/signature.pgp