Re: wlroots backport?

Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:50:12 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.backports.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Nick Hastings <[email protected]> writes:

> * Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> [230818 14:04]:
>> 18.08.2023 02:47, Nick Hastings пишет:
>> > * Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> [230815 02:55]:
>> 
>> ..until something *else* is backported too which uses the backported
>> wlroots, like sway.  So basically, if we're about backporting this,
>> we should think about backporting, for example, sway, with wlroots
>> as a pre-dependency, not wlroots alone.  *That* will make sense.
>> Backporting wlroots by itself does not.
>
> Understood.
>
> Interestingly, just over 24 hours ago a sway backport enquiry was
> posted:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2023/08/msg00019.html

This is good news!  Now that a request has been made, someone can now
step forward to maintain a backport of sway, and thus a wlroots backport.

> I am still curious about the soname issue, which I understood to be
> independent of the this.

I'm also curious about this.  Were this the case, shouldn't 0.16.0-1
have added Breaks and Replaces, and wouldn't they still be needed?

Regards,
Nicholas

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)