> Hi Adam, > > On 08.07.2011 18:24, Adam Borowski wrote: > > If you don't make use of newest shiniest features, higher debhelper > levels > > just make backporting harder for no gain. > > There is debhelper 8 in both, lenny-backports as well as in > squeeze-backports. > > Moreover Debian packages target Sid, not (Old-) Stable, and this is > where efforts should be invested in. Moreover backports are something > optional, not a requirement for new packages, or something which should > even necessarily kept in mind when working on packages.
While I agree with your argument of debhelper being present in lenny and squeeze backport, I think it is the only one. I strongly do not agree with the "or something which should even necessarily kept in mind" part. Giving an advice here or there to have backporting made more easy doesn't hurt. It's not a strong requirement, but it for sure is a good thing. If you (build)-depend with (>= version) being unecessary too high, you are unecessarily making the life of the eventual backporter harder, and this should be avoided if possible. When I do a sponsoring, it might not be very common to do so, but I always try the package in both Stable and SID, to see if there are eventual issues that may raise. Sometimes, a few minor tweaks here or there really helps to make the backport being reduced to a diff in debian/changelog. That doesn't only help an eventual backporter, but also anyone which is running Stable, and wishes to rebuild a SID package for his own use (which I do often for myself). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e176b0d.8060...@debian.org
