Hi Ted, Am 10. Dezember 2024 05:15:25 MEZ schrieb Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>: >Potentally stupid question. I want to upload the latest version of >efsprogs from testing to debian-backports. In that version, there is >a "new" transitional package, fuseext2. It's not "new" in that >fuseext2 use to be built from a difference source package, >src:fuse-umfuse-ext2 which has been abandoned by its upstream, so >we've replaced fusext2 with a shell script which emlates its CLI in >terms of e2fsprogs fuse2fs. > >However, it is "new" in that > >(a) it's new to the e2fsprogs source package. > >(b) it's new to debian/backports since there has never been a backport >of src:fuse-umfuse-ext2. > >So.... do I need to do a source+binary upload, or will be OK to do a >source-only upload? (All of the other binary packages are in >debian-backports since e2fsprogs has been previously uploaded to >debian-backports.)
In terms of dak, bookworm-backports is just another suite of packages. The technical mechanics of how it is populated with packages is not really different to sid. So, due to (b) you will need a source+binary upload, which will then go through NEW for manual approval (obviously the policy of what is being accepted by whom is different to sid). >There are no instructions that I can find on point in >https://backports.debian.org/Contribute, and the text in >https://wiki.debian.org/SourceOnlyUpload don't go into enough detail. If you have a specific improvement in mind, I'd appreciate a merge request for <https://salsa.debian.org/backports-team/backports-website.git>. >Also, if I have to do a source+binary upload, the comments in >SourceOnlyUpload entry in the Debian Wiki about the package not being >eligible to be transitioned from unstable to testing aren't really >applicable for debian-backports, right? So do we have any enforcement >of the desire that source-only packages are considered desirable for >the Debian archive when it is for debian-backports? Unfortunately we can only enforce source-only uploads once they are accepted. New binary packages will need a source+binary upload to go through NEW - same as for sid/experimental. Side note: When processing the NEW queue of backports, I do review the binary uploads because they enable me to do a quick cross check whether the binaries were built in a suitable build environment for stable+backports (i.e. not in testing/unstable) -- and this is surprisingly a (occasional but) recurring reason for rejecting an upload. Some backport uploaders go the extra mile and (once the source+binary upload got accepted) follow up with a source-only upload as ~bpo12+2, which then causes the uploaded binary packages to be replaced by build generated binary packages. This is at least something every uploader can do to accomplish the same outcome, but I am not fully convinced this is something we shall enforce in the future the same way we already do for testing. Cheers, Micha
