On 27 December 2013 16:08, Clint Byrum <spam...@debian.org> wrote: > Excerpts from Dimitri John Ledkov's message of 2013-12-27 07:18:05 -0800: >> On 27 December 2013 15:00, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >> > On 12/17/2013 01:02 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> You'll want to have at least the following build dependencies: >> >> >> >> * debhelper (>= 8) >> >> - * dh-python >> >> * python-all (>= 2.6.6-3~) >> >> * python-setuptools >> >> * python3-all >> >> * python3-setuptools >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just reacting on the above change. It's my understanding that we do need >> > to add dh-python explicitly if we want clean backports (eg: unchanged >> > from Sid). Am I right? If that's the case, shouldn't we advise to write >> > dh-python explicitly for until Jessie is released? >> > >> >> Why should back-ports dictate how Jessie is developed? This is not the >> same requirements as e.g. dpkg where last one must be able to process >> all packages from the immediately next release. >> > > I don't think this is dictation, just pragmatic cooperation with a fairly > popular service. > >> And dh-python is available from backports - stable-bpo 1.20131021-1~bpo70+1 >> >> I don't understand why are you insisting on blocking migrations to >> dh-python. Is there some non-Debian requirement that you are omitting >> / not-telling here? >> > > I can't tell if you're being suspicious or leading. Either way, can we > just trust each-other and use clear language? I don't see any ulterior > motive there, just a desire to keep things simple. >
OK, I'm sorry. What does it mean a "clean backport" vs other type of backports? dh-python is in backports, so no changes are required to backport packages build-depending on dh-python. Is that not clean enough? -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canbhluj1khkx7q+39-p-9hmvyysvruaxegoeem38hwz3hhg...@mail.gmail.com
