Re: Website and library packages
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:48:48PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 02:46:29AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > That approach gets rid of a lot of hassles associated with upgrading the
> > > sources, and allows people to rebuild their kernel and core system. You just
> > > pull the new sources from CVS, and use the scripts to build debs. A lot like
> > > kernel-package, except that it has to handle more packages.
> > I've left the CVS directories in there, so it ought to be possible for
> > package maintainers to deal with upgrades. On the other hand, the idea of
> > a user being able to upgrade stuff in-situ sounds rather cool :) I'm not
> > sure whether the best policy here is to stick with the existing Debian
> > mentality of individual packages dealt with by different maintainers or a
> > huge package with the user having more choice over updates as you
> > suggest. What does everyone else think?
> I think we should do it the way it's currently done in Debian for
> now. If we want to use CVS, we should set it up Debian-wide. I like
> the idea of using CVS for Debian source packages.
What I had in mind was that you'd get an equivilent to kernel-package, which
would be able to get it's source either from a kernel-source type package, or
with cvsup from the CVS repository for NetBSD or FreeBSD. Not that different
from Linux, just the ability to get updated source code through CVS. This is
something that makes it easier for users who build their own kernels, and also
easier for whoever makes the official ones. Like kernel-package does on Linux.
The important question isn't CVS. It's whether to try to break up a very large
set of source into separate source packages, which need to be at synchronized
versions, or to simply build some scripts to turn it into multiple packages.