Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)
On Tue, 22, Mar, 2011 at 01:57:42PM +0000, Hector Oron spoke thus..
> Hi Mark,
> 2011/3/22 Mark Hymers <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > The current design is the Binary packages can contain an additional
> > control field: Built-Using.
> First of all, thanks very much for taking care of it, that probably
> will get us going.
> I just would like to point out that current design solves half of
> the problem (being GPL compliant), but it does not solve code
> duplication in the archive, which it can also be useful for large
> datasets. IMHO, we do not want source and binary packages containing
> the same bits, bytes and nibbles, problem which might be solved by the
> multiarch specification, treating 'source' as yet another architecture
> (in next couple years?) :-)
I'd have thought the right answer to that was to allow some form of
Build-Depends-Source mechanism where the source is unpacked at build
time in a known place or something. Of course, the problem with this is
that we traditionally haven't allowed network access to be required
during a build so the exact semantics would have to be worked out.
Maybe something like, if a package declares
the source code must be available under debian/external-source/gcc-4.5
and then leave it up to the builder to sort that out. That's a rough
(and probably bad) idea off the top of my head - I'm sure the buildd
team at least will have other thoughts on the matter.
Mark Hymers <mhy at debian dot org>
"But Yossarian *still* didn't understand either how Milo could buy eggs
in Malta for seven cents apiece and sell them at a profit in Pianosa
for five cents."
Catch 22, Joseph Heller