Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:59AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I think it should be in the porters control what packages to build for
> an arch with some guidelines what sort of packages can be removed
> without loosing release status. For example removing KDE would not be
> OK. Removal should be reserved for extreme cases though. Things that
> just need long to build should be put into weak_no_auto and limited to
> the stronger buildds of an arch.
Well, this can be problematic as you know and as mips proved prominently 2
or 3 years ago. ;)
And even more weak_no_auto doesn't prevent consideration for testing
migration, so this wouldn't help much at all.
> Maybe someone could come up with a britney patch that would allow an
> arch to make a list of package non-blocking for the testing
> transition. A package like axiom should not be blocked from testing
> because m68k hasn't build it yet. It should be perfectly save to
> remove it for m68k till such a time that the buildds catch up. Things
> that the porters/maintainer are reasonably sure noone will miss but we
> try to build it just in case anyway. I think a lot of the potential
> excludes fall under this category.
The w-b/dak suite already implements some sort of those mechanisms. It can
exlcude an arch from testing migration, it can exclude package per P-A-S, so
it just needs a mixture of both to exclude packages for some archs for the
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
Ingo \X/ SIP: email@example.com
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc