banshee backport (some questions)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

banshee backport (some questions)

Sebastian Dröge-3
Hi,
I wanted to get banshee backported to breezy... but this needs
libipoddevice and ipod-sharp beeing backported too.

The problem now is, that ipod-sharp needs monodoc 1.1.9 which in turn
needs xsp 1.1.9 which in turn needs mono 1.1.9.
ipod-sharp needs monodoc for a documentation package which was disabled
in breezy but I see no way how to disable it for breezy backports and
let it enabled for dapper from the same sourcepackage. Is it possible to
use a modified sourcepackage for a backport or _must_ it be the dapper
one?

Bye

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

John Dong-2
We'd like it all to be Dapper sources. I've talked to tseng briefly about Mono backports, and he was OK with the idea, since no big mono changes have occurred.

Maybe we'll get that started soon.

On 11/13/05, Sebastian Dröge <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to get banshee backported to breezy... but this needs
libipoddevice and ipod-sharp beeing backported too.

The problem now is, that ipod-sharp needs monodoc 1.1.9 which in turn
needs xsp 1.1.9 which in turn needs mono 1.1.9.
ipod-sharp needs monodoc for a documentation package which was disabled
in breezy but I see no way how to disable it for breezy backports and
let it enabled for dapper from the same sourcepackage. Is it possible to
use a modified sourcepackage for a backport or _must_ it be the dapper
one?

Bye


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDd1OaBsBdh1vkHyERAqWmAKCGsHlC+4d3vwk7Sq4HdR6WeknTVQCfc8dZ
z7hsPdNNrPt/S+ICdYZoZb0=
=0+SF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports




--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

Sebastian Dröge-3
On So, 2005-11-13 at 10:22 -0500, John Dong wrote:
> We'd like it all to be Dapper sources. I've talked to tseng briefly
> about Mono backports, and he was OK with the idea, since no big mono
> changes have occurred.
>
> Maybe we'll get that started soon.

No, he told you that 'mono' is fine... only the mono package not the
complete mono stack. monodoc for example will be problematic so please
don't do it.

That's exactly why I ask... so we have 2 options here... either using a
modified ipod-sharp sourcepackage for the backports or no banshee
backported at all.
Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets
backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be
braindead to me... and I won't like to do it

Bye

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

Reinhard Tartler
On 11/13/05, Sebastian Dröge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On So, 2005-11-13 at 10:22 -0500, John Dong wrote:
> > We'd like it all to be Dapper sources. I've talked to tseng briefly
> > about Mono backports, and he was OK with the idea, since no big mono
> > changes have occurred.
> >
> > Maybe we'll get that started soon.
>
> No, he told you that 'mono' is fine... only the mono package not the
> complete mono stack. monodoc for example will be problematic so please
> don't do it.
>
> That's exactly why I ask... so we have 2 options here... either using a
> modified ipod-sharp sourcepackage for the backports or no banshee
> backported at all.

I don't want to search through my irclogs, but exactly this point was
my biggest concerns when we discussed inclusion of official backports
to ubuntu. That time, the backporters team said that they will never
need to actually touch the source package. I had my concerns, because
sometimes backporting is more than just recompiling, especially in
debian, where the gap between stable and testing can be quite big. But
obviously, recompiling works surprisingly well, mainly because the
difference (e.g. in toolchain packages) between dapper and breezy
isn't that big.

It was imo just a matter of time when this problem would arise. The
fact is that we agreed that time that official backports are really
just recompilation of sources from the development branch. So if you
really want to have 'real' maintainer uploads to -backports, I'd
suggest working on a well written spec describing a clear policy what
is to be done when doing these uploads.  This spec/proposal would
definitely need blessing from the technical board again.

Until this happens, I see no other choice than providing selected
packages in personal package archives. This would mean dubious 3rd
party archives again and the resulting problems with supporting our
users. :(

> Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets
> backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be
> braindead to me... and I won't like to do it

what would you do when you need to update the package in
breezy-backports again? Imo this would be a nightmare, please don't.

--
regards,
    Reinhard

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

Sebastian Dröge-3
On So, 2005-11-13 at 19:05 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> It was imo just a matter of time when this problem would arise. The
> fact is that we agreed that time that official backports are really
> just recompilation of sources from the development branch. So if you
> really want to have 'real' maintainer uploads to -backports, I'd
> suggest working on a well written spec describing a clear policy what
> is to be done when doing these uploads.  This spec/proposal would
> definitely need blessing from the technical board again.

Yes, that would be necessary in that case... but I don't care enough to
write such spec... maybe jdong wants to ;)

But I've talked to tseng and we came to the conclusion that it won't
hurt to backport the complete mono stack... if it's done right! and not
now but when we got all the latest stuff working together

> Until this happens, I see no other choice than providing selected
> packages in personal package archives. This would mean dubious 3rd
> party archives again and the resulting problems with supporting our
> users. :(

There already exist such 3rd party repos that have latest banshee and
dependencies

> > Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets
> > backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be
> > braindead to me... and I won't like to do it
>
> what would you do when you need to update the package in
> breezy-backports again? Imo this would be a nightmare, please don't.

Don't worry... I'm not planning something that evil :)

Bye

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

Stephan Hermann
Hi Guys,

to make a long story short...

would it be ok, to use breezy updates for this?

I mean, if it's in universe, we (MOTU) can handle this...obviously it
should be done by someone who has the right mono knowledge.

regards,

\sh

On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:25 +0100, Sebastian Dröge wrote:

> On So, 2005-11-13 at 19:05 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > It was imo just a matter of time when this problem would arise. The
> > fact is that we agreed that time that official backports are really
> > just recompilation of sources from the development branch. So if you
> > really want to have 'real' maintainer uploads to -backports, I'd
> > suggest working on a well written spec describing a clear policy what
> > is to be done when doing these uploads.  This spec/proposal would
> > definitely need blessing from the technical board again.
>
> Yes, that would be necessary in that case... but I don't care enough to
> write such spec... maybe jdong wants to ;)
>
> But I've talked to tseng and we came to the conclusion that it won't
> hurt to backport the complete mono stack... if it's done right! and not
> now but when we got all the latest stuff working together
>
> > Until this happens, I see no other choice than providing selected
> > packages in personal package archives. This would mean dubious 3rd
> > party archives again and the resulting problems with supporting our
> > users. :(
>
> There already exist such 3rd party repos that have latest banshee and
> dependencies
>
> > > Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets
> > > backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be
> > > braindead to me... and I won't like to do it
> >
> > what would you do when you need to update the package in
> > breezy-backports again? Imo this would be a nightmare, please don't.
>
> Don't worry... I'm not planning something that evil :)
>
> Bye

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

John Dong-2
Hey, go right ahead. Whatever gets people better banshee :)


Thanks.

On 11/13/05, Stephan Hermann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Guys,

to make a long story short...

would it be ok, to use breezy updates for this?

I mean, if it's in universe, we (MOTU) can handle this...obviously it
should be done by someone who has the right mono knowledge.

regards,

\sh

On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 19:25 +0100, Sebastian Dröge wrote:

> On So, 2005-11-13 at 19:05 +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > It was imo just a matter of time when this problem would arise. The
> > fact is that we agreed that time that official backports are really
> > just recompilation of sources from the development branch. So if you
> > really want to have 'real' maintainer uploads to -backports, I'd
> > suggest working on a well written spec describing a clear policy what
> > is to be done when doing these uploads.  This spec/proposal would
> > definitely need blessing from the technical board again.
>
> Yes, that would be necessary in that case... but I don't care enough to
> write such spec... maybe jdong wants to ;)
>
> But I've talked to tseng and we came to the conclusion that it won't
> hurt to backport the complete mono stack... if it's done right! and not
> now but when we got all the latest stuff working together
>
> > Until this happens, I see no other choice than providing selected
> > packages in personal package archives. This would mean dubious 3rd
> > party archives again and the resulting problems with supporting our
> > users. :(
>
> There already exist such 3rd party repos that have latest banshee and
> dependencies
>
> > > Or I could upload a stripped ipod-sharp to dapper, this one gets
> > > backported and I add monodoc support again. But this seems to be
> > > braindead to me... and I won't like to do it
> >
> > what would you do when you need to update the package in
> > breezy-backports again? Imo this would be a nightmare, please don't.
>
> Don't worry... I'm not planning something that evil :)
>
> Bye

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports


--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

Stephan Hermann
Good Morning John,

without an Ok of Matt there is nothing to do :)

Regards,

\sh

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

John Dong-2
yeah, I already e-mailed Matt once about Banshee and options....

/me sits patiently :)

On 11/13/05, Stephan Hermann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good Morning John,

without an Ok of Matt there is nothing to do :)

Regards,

\sh

--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports


--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: banshee backport (some questions)

John Dong-2
In reply to this post by Sebastian Dröge-3


Yes, that would be necessary in that case... but I don't care enough to
write such spec... maybe jdong wants to ;)

Hmm, exactly what do one of these spec things look like? ;-)

I might write one, because there are always those little things (like a simple package name change) that stops an otherwise perfectly good backport candidate in its tracks.



--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports