[Build-common-hackers] Bug#695367: Bug#695367: Bug#695367: [cdbs] Please, backport the fix to wheezy.

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Tue Jun 25 14:54:21 UTC 2013

Quoting Petr Gajdůšek (2013-06-25 15:23:51)
> actually, I have talked about backports.d.o.

Ok.  Thanks for clarifying that.

> My concerns are:
> 0) I still think the fix should go to proposed-updates, rather than 
> backporting whole stuff, at least for support from security team and 
> then packages on wheezy built without relro seem weird to me, even 
> only locally built ones, as it is (was) release goal for wheezy.

Changes to compiler flags is something that may cause surprises.  That's 
the reason each and every package need to deal with that, instead of 
enforcing flags centrally.  I therefore find it a too risky change for a 
stable update.

I find a backporting repository a perfect way to isolate such more risky 
changes.  But (as I understand it) the rules of backports.d.o repository 
in specific makes it more difficult to handle backporting pakcages which 
affect the build environment itself.

Essentially this is about how packages rely on sane defaults for its 
build environment, and the definition of "sane defaults" changing from 
release to release.

> Ad backports.d.o:
> 1) You are the maintainer and maybe you want make the backport 
> yourself?

No thank you.  I do a bunch of backporting, but am not yet convinced 
that the governing rules of backports.d.o are good, so I do not 
participate in that particular set of repositories.

> 2) I am not regular CDBS user and I do not know nothing about its 
> internals. Though the backporting is really straightforward.
> 3) I see my life as rather unstable and not sure if I will be able to 
> backport new versions with important (e.g. security) fixes for the 
> whole life of wheezy (as stable and oldstable).
> Therefore I think the unintrusive fix would be better in p-u to avoid 
> the burden of a backport.

What fix do you consider unintrusive?

> Regardless, I have uploaded a backport to 
> https://mentors.debian.net/package/cdbs, if you still think the 
> backport would be better then p-u and don't have objections, I can 
> post it to debian-backports at lists.debian.org.

Good luck with that.  And thanks for raising this issue - even if I (so 
far) am not convinced about it,

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/build-common-hackers/attachments/20130625/7dd77d63/attachment.sig>

More information about the Build-common-hackers mailing list