On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try > to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport > is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a > starting point. If judd thinks all the dependencies are satisfiable, > then you can try the backport.
judd sounds like a useful system, but I disagree that the next step is necessarily backports. For example, I just recently installed sid's "flatpak" on a stretch system, and all dependencies were satisfyable from stretch (in fact, were already installed, from when I installed the version of flatpak in stretch). So sometimes this is a quick solution. If the version in sid had wanted to pull in dependencies from sid, then I would have had to make a judgement call as to the impact of that, versus the inconvenience of building from source. > If a backport isn't possible, I would actually prefer to build the package > normally from upstream source code (./configure; make; sudo make install) > than to install a binary from testing/unstable onto stable. Yes, I think that might actually be easier than wrangling with Debian packaging, especially if the user is not already familiar with it. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
