Re: Bootstrappable Debian - proposal of needed changes
Thanks a lot for your work on this! and to everyone else who worked on
or shaped the proposal.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> - should Debian be bootstrappable in a fully automated fashion? We
> created the algorithms that can allow this to happen, we just need
> more meta data and a way to encode it
That sounds useful, so yes. arm64 is on the way, it would be a nice
test case but I guess wookey/Sledge are onto that. The SH-5 CPU
architecture apparently exists but has no port. There are also the
architectures with open-source CPU designs OpenRISC and LatticeMico32
(LM32, used in the Milkymist SoC). So it is safe to say that there
could be new Debian ports in the future and that your work would be
very helpful in reducing the investment needed for new ports.
> - do the proposals for the needed fields sound convincing? Can they be
> improved? Do they have fundamental flaws?
As an interested bystander, it sounds good.
Agreed about using Profile rather than Build-with-profile/Built-with-profile.
I imagine that most packages will be cross-buildable. Packages outside
the set of bootstrap packages probably don't need to declare if they
are cross-buildable or not? Cross-building is a slightly larger topic
since there are things like arch:all firmware for ARM processors in
the same source package as the tools that upload that firmware. There
are also various packages in the archive (or potential ones) that are
cross-built for non-Debian architectures (like win32, SH-2 or bionic
libc).
If you think this might be interesting to announce more widely (as I
do), please add a paragraph to the next DeveloperNews, which will be
released on debian-devel-announce when we get 5 entries.
http://wiki.debian.org/DeveloperNews
I'm also sending a mail to LWN and the distributions mailing list (at
freedesktop), it might be interesting to developers of other
distributions, especially Gentoo :)
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: