[...]
> Please note that the related open-vm-tools-desktop package also needs to be kept at the same version as open-vm-tools. As I mentioned we're using VMware's "Horizon View" product so I require this also.
> Do I need to raise a bug against that package also?
The source package open-vm-tools which I thrown in a test backport
here builds all the binary packages you mentioned, so
open-vm-tools-desktop is already in the ppa.
>
> I linked open-vm-tools version 10.2.0 as it is the stable latest available. My thinking is that if an update is necessary (and with the testing that involves) why not go to the latest now?!
Sure eventually we might go for that.
But usually for any such work you'd not go ahead of the latest
available version - otherwise people upgrading from former Ubuntu
releases would downgrade the package.
For the current level of "giving it a try and evaluate" 10.1.15 is just as good.
>
> Could you please clarify this:
> "
> The maintainer scripts have not a lot (actually none) version dependent special cases that sometimes wreaking havok for such backports.
> "
That mostly is a note to myself that there is not a lot of special
magic making these backports harder, sorry for being misleading.
TL;DR - Note: it has none of the bad stuff
[...] tools-desktop package also needs to be kept at the same version as open-vm-tools. As I mentioned we're using VMware's "Horizon View" product so I require this also.
> Please note that the related open-vm-
> Do I need to raise a bug against that package also?
The source package open-vm-tools which I thrown in a test backport tools-desktop is already in the ppa.
here builds all the binary packages you mentioned, so
open-vm-
>
> I linked open-vm-tools version 10.2.0 as it is the stable latest available. My thinking is that if an update is necessary (and with the testing that involves) why not go to the latest now?!
Sure eventually we might go for that.
But usually for any such work you'd not go ahead of the latest
available version - otherwise people upgrading from former Ubuntu
releases would downgrade the package.
For the current level of "giving it a try and evaluate" 10.1.15 is just as good.
>
> Could you please clarify this:
> "
> The maintainer scripts have not a lot (actually none) version dependent special cases that sometimes wreaking havok for such backports.
> "
That mostly is a note to myself that there is not a lot of special
magic making these backports harder, sorry for being misleading.
TL;DR - Note: it has none of the bad stuff