Re: How should we deal with 'pointless-on-this-arch' packages?
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:13:53AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/15/06 00:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@connexer.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> Why *shouldn't* KDE, GNOME, Firefox/Iceweasel, Tbird, and anything
> that requires Mesa/OpenGL, and all of Charles Plessy's scientific
> packages be marked do_not_build on 68k/Coldfire & ARM?
Because they all have many reverse dependencies. Because running (e.g.)
konqueror may still be a good idea even if you don't want to run all of
KDE.
Because "not interested in all of this" does not necessarily mean "not
interested even in part of this".
> If an Amiga (using the unaccelerated fb driver?) is running as an X
> Terminal for a powerful, modern box, the Amiga would need to process
> the OpenGL commands, no?
Sometimes.
--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Reply to: