What is the multimedia future for Squeeze?
dr at jones.dk
Mon Mar 22 00:32:45 UTC 2010
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:53:20PM -0700, info at bandshed.net wrote:
>My question about Stable was semi-rhetorical. Having observed the
>pattern of Debian Stable in the past (and yes I was complaining a
>little wee bit). Now that there is a dedicated multimedia packaging
>team I wonder if AV Linux should continue with Squeeze (less fresh
>packages, far more core library stability) and will there be a better
>representation of multimedia updates through down to Stable?. Or will I
>need to continue using Testing as a base in order to continue keeping
>Does that make more sense?
Thanks - it makes more sense to me now, yes (and perhaps if I weren't so
jumpy/grumpy I might have understood from your first post even).
As others have mentioned already, Debian itself haven't changed: stable
is _stable_ and only security-related updates are permitted into it
after its release - any new features will only occur in testing,
unstable and experimental.
backports.org is one approach to bridge the gap between stability and
new features. You provide another yourself, if I understood correctly.
Personally I maintain a huge pile of backported packages, some even for
Etch (oldstable) still. I find the governing rules of backports.org too
relaxed, so do not participate in that.
So there are a multitude of options for mixing stable Debian with other
parts - either testing or unstable Debian or something external to
What we can do here in this packaging team is to strive towards best
possible conditions not only for a package to fullfill the requirements
of getting into Debian unstable, but also suitable for recompilation in
alien environments usable by various backports and sideports.
Personally I try to avoid including packaging features difficult to
backport to oldstable, or if too much hassle then at least stable.
Currently this means I avoid debhelper v7 because I have found newer
releases of the debhelper package itself quite tricky to backport.
I don't mean to preach debhelper as evil here, just mention one (to me
quite concrete) example of caring about backportability when
Hopefully that addressed some of your concern.
 For several years I have fought to maintain a backport of the
Perl-based LDAP admin tool CipUX for Etch, which involved backporting
several Perl libraries that quite annoyingly have been repackaged using
the shortform debhelper v7 that has been impossible (for me) to backport
to Etch. I ended up repackaging those libraries from scratch using CDBS
- being happy that it was only Perl libraries I had to deal with like
that, as they are luckily quite easy to package (and even easier using
CDBS IMHO, but that's another story).
* 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: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers